Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACT, 1939 (CONTINUANCE)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Mr. BOULTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:

I have received your Address praying that the Emergency Powers (Defence Act), 1939, as amended by any subsequent Enactment, be continued in force for a further period of one year beginning with the Twenty-fourth day of August, Nineteen hundred and forty-three.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Irish Workers (Visits to Ireland)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulty that men and women find themselves in, who desire to return home to Ireland during the shut-down weeks, that there are no bookings available on steamers to Ireland; and, in view of the contribution to the war effort of these people, the need to encourage them and maintain their good-will, will he ask the authorities concerned to organise the munition workers' visits and have steamers placed at their disposal during the short period required?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): My right hon. Friend appreciates the desire of Irish workers to return home during their holiday period, and steps have been taken to provide a certain easement in the position. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any individual cases of hardship.

Mr. Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the manage-

ments concerned are very satisfied with the contributions made by these people in the war effort and that they have taken steps to have them taken even on cargo boats? In view of that, will he see that this matter is treated as one of urgency so as to give as much satisfaction as possible?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is advisable that men working on secret weapons and processes should be encouraged to go to Eire for their holidays as long as there is a German Legation in Dublin which is prepared to pay large sums for secret information?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is an entirely different question.

Transferred Workers (Bank Holiday Travel)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the railway warrants issued to workers who have been directed are not available for two days either side of the Bank Holiday on a return journey from their homes; how will this arrangement affect work-people where their shut-down period terminates on the Tuesday after Bank Holiday; is he aware that the railway companies have refused to meet this difficulty; and will he take action in order to avoid friction which may lead to two or more days loss of production?

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend has been advised by my noble Friend the Minister of War Transport that the congestion on the railways immediately before and after Bank Holidays will not permit of extra passenger travel without detriment to essential war traffic. He has, therefore, agreed that the use of cheap travel warrants for transferred workers should, like other forms of privilege travel, be suspended for a few days at these times, and it is regretted that the war situation will not allow any variation of this decision.

Mr. Smith: In view of the position that these workpeople will be in and that production should come before everything else, will my hon. Friend approach the Minister of Transport with a view to having this matter reconsidered and treated as a matter of urgency?

Sir Patrick Hannon: This is really a matter of urgency, and will not the hon. Gentleman see the Minister of Transport again? It means a serious stop in production if these people cannot travel back to their work.

Mr. Tomlinson: This does not interfere with travelling back to their work. It is the travelling away that is interfered with. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I will see what can be done.

Trade Union Officials

Flight-Lieutenant Raikes: asked the Minister of Labour the age above which trade union officials are reserved against military service or direction into another civilian occupation?

Mr. Tomlinson: Trade union officials are not reserved from military service, but those whose retention on their trade union work is considered to be essential may have their calling up deferred. Officials over military age are not, under present arrangements, directed to other civilian work.

Hotel Domestic Staffs

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the essential nature of the hotel industry, he will exercise restraint in the transference of women engaged in domestic work in hotel to other work of national importance?

Mr. Tomlinson: My right hon. Friend has already made arrangements which should enable hotels to retain essential domestic staff.

Directed Workers (Reinstatement)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider giving the right of reinstatement to persons directed by him into other employment under Regulation 58A; and whether he is aware of the grievance felt by employees who, after many years of service, are being transferred without any assurance of reinstatement?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) on r8th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

Food Shops

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether the calling-up of more

of the personnel in food shops will mean the closing of any such shops, co-operative stores or private enterprise; what authority it is that decides who is a pivotal worker; what number of registered customers a shop must possess to warrant it not being closed by the call-up; and whether he has taken into consideration the fact that if a branch shop is closed by this process the trade of that shop can be transferred to other establishments of the same firm whilst this cannot be the case in the one-man business or the small co-operative stores?

Mr. Tomlinson: Under the arrangements which my right hon. Friend has made in agreement with my noble Friend the Minister of Food, the further withdrawal of personnel from food shops will be so regulated as not to compel such shops to close down for this reason. The other parts of the Question, which deal with the closing down of food shops, therefore, do not arise. Pivotal workers in food shops are identified by the District Man-Power Board in consultation with the Divisonal Food Officer.

Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend accurate in saying that no small food shops are being closed owing to the calling up of people employed in them? If I give him some instances will he look into them? When is the Ministry of Labour going to stop this ferocious combing-out of men and women employed in the distributive trades?

Mr. Tomlinson: I did not say that shops had not closed, but we will certainly look into any cases where it is alleged that shops are being closed because of calling up. What I said was that instructions had been given that people should not be called up where it would lead to the closing of food shops. There may be a dispute as to whether or not an individual is a pivotal worker.

Mr. Davies: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the great importance of this issue, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view


of the number of claims for unemployment insurance benefit which are disallowed on account of ignorance of the correct procedure in applying for benefit, he will arrange that, in addition to displaying more prominent notices in employment exchanges, the staff of exchanges will draw the attention of persons registering for work after a period of sickness to the correct method of making fresh claims for unemployment insurance benefit?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not aware that a large number of claims are so disallowed, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any cases I will inquire into them. The staff already have instructions to assist claimants, and a new issue of large posters for this purpose could scarcely be justified in present circumstances.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Will the hon. Gentleman look into cases that are turned down by the appeal tribunals?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, certainly, if there is a reason for their late applications.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not a fact that trade union officials will see that men get what they are entitled to?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, but this question probably refers to cases of new entrants into industry who are not familiar with the procedure. If cases are sent forward, we will see that inquiry is made.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN JOURNALISTS (VISIT TO GREAT BRITAIN)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the visit to this country of newspaper editors from West Africa and the West Indies, he will make arrangements for a similar visit from representative Indian editors or journalists?

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I am in communication. with the Government of India regarding the hon. Member's suggestion, and I will consider the matter as soon as I have received their views.

Mr. Sorensen: When will my right hon. Friend he able to indicate his decision?

Mr. Amery: Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask a Question in the next series of Sittings.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL PRISONER (TREATMENT)

Mr. Benson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Justice Cassels, on Wednesday, 5th May, at Manchester Assizes, passed a sentence of four years' penal servitude on a medical practitioner convicted of performing illegal operations; that following evidence that the prisoner had suffered from general paralysis of the insane, and was now a mental wreck, the judge stated in passing sentence that there would be ample opportunity for more efficient treatment of the prisoner's case; what steps he has taken to provide specialised mental treatment; in what prison it is being provided; and the qualifications of the medical practitioner by whom the treatment is being given?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The prisoner to whom my hon. Friend refers has been transferred to Wormwood Scrubs Prison, where there are facilities for dealing with mental cases requiring special treatment, and where he is under the care of the Medical Officer, who has a wide experience of cases of this kind.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Was he mad when he received sentence of four years?

Mr. Benson: Is the prisoner referred to actually receiving malaria treatment?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say that, but he is under most careful observation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRESPASS ON GROWING CROPS

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the date and terms of his circular to magistrates on the subject of Defence Regulations relating to Trespass?

Mr. H. Morrison: I think my hon. Friend's Question must be due to some misunderstanding. No circular on this subject has been issued to magistrates by my Department. He may have in mind a reference which was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to a circular issued to Chief Constables.


It would not be in accordance with practice to divulge the terms of Home Office circulars to the police which are confidential, but the gist of the advice given to the police is that the regulation was designed to prevent pilfering and damage and not to penalise innocent trespassers.

Sir H. Williams: On a point of Order. If a circular or document issued by a Minister is quoted in Debate, is there not an obligation on the Minister to circulate it to Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. Departmental instructions need not be laid on the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — REDISTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY SEATS (PROPOSED LEGISLATION)

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to state the Government's proposals as regards redistribution of Parliamentary seats?

Mr. Parker: asked the. Home Secretary whether the Government have yet concluded their consideration of the question of redistribution; and whether he can make any statement on the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the length of the answer to these Questions, which I will, with permission, answer together, I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions.

Later—

Mr. Morrison: Since the last distribution of Parliamentary seats took place in 1918, there have been large changes in the distribution of population. In some constituencies the population has been greatly reduced; in others the population has doubled and in some places even trebled or quadrupled. On the principle, therefore, that each vote recorded shall as far as possible command an equal share of representation in the House of Commons, the case for a scheme of redistribution is established. The Departmental Committee on Electoral Machinery, which included representatives of the main political parties, recommended that Parliament, when taking the necessary steps to correct the maldistribution now existing, should also make permanent provision for adjusting constituencies to future changes in the

distribution of population. The Government propose to submit to Parliament legislation to give effect to the Committee's recommendations. In such legislation it is proposed to set out the general principles on which any scheme of redistribution should be based; to provide for the appointment of Boundary Commissioners charged with the duty of preparing schemes when occasion arises for distributing constituencies in accordance with those principles; and to make provision for the submission of any such schemes to Parliament for approval. By the passing of such legislation it is hoped to secure that a scheme of redistribution will take effect before the first post-war General Election is held. Thereafter there will be in existence a standing body of Boundary Commissioners, who will keep the state of the constituencies under review and will be in a position, when any redistribution is required, to prepare schemes for Parliamentary approval. Under such an arrangement complete control over all measures of redistribution will remain with Parliament.
The proposed legislation will be submitted as early as possible, but its preparation will take a little time, and, having regard to the state of Parliamentary business, it will not be practicable to present it till after the Recess.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman, following on the precedent of 1918, while redistribution is being considered, at the same time set up a Commission or Committee of inquiry to consider the whole of the electoral system, which he undertook to do some three years ago when he first introduced the Bill dealing with the extension of the life of Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: I think my right hon. Friend's recollection is not quite correct. There have been repeated requests for a Speaker's Conference or a Commission on Electoral Reform but the Government have not yet returned an affirmative answer to that, although it is not excluded, but what we did say was that we would give an opportunity for Parliamentary Debate at an appropriate time so that views on electoral reform could be ventilated, and the Government would take them into account. I do not think that my right hon. Friend will find that


the statement I have made in any, way prejudices that undertaking.

Sir P. Harris: Do the Government refuse to give an opportunity for discussion? We have constantly asked for an opportunity during the last few years, and three years have gone by and we have not had an opportunity to discuss electoral reform.

Mr. Morrison: That is quite true, because the Government think that the appropriate time has not yet been reached.

Sir H. Williams: Why need there be any undue delay in presenting the Bill, having regard to the fact that every one of these proposals is to be found incorported in a Private Bill that I introduced seven years ago?

Mr. A. Bevan: Does not the Home Secretary realise that there will be a very great amount of resentment, particularly in Wales and, I imagine, in Scotland, if Parliamentary representation is going to be based upon what has been considered to be an entirely unfair method of denuding these areas of their population in the last 10 or 15 years, and they will not want to have that situation perpetuated in Parliamentary representation?

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the Act of 192o the representation of Northern Ireland was reduced from 3o to 13 and the representation of the City of Belfast from 9 to 4? Does he think that this representation of Ulster is adequate in the Imperial Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: I should not like to express an opinion about the adequacy of Ulster's representation. It does, at any rate, make itself felt. The circumstances of Northern Ireland are special, in that Northern Ireland has a Parliament of its own which is doing in respect of Northern Ireland much of the work which, in Great Britain, is done by this Parliament.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Has due weight been given to the Minority Report attached to the Report to which my right hon. Friend has referred, in view of the fact that after the war it will take a long time before the population is properly settled?

Mr. Morrison: The Minority Report was in respect of the point as to whether

there should be a redistribution in relation to a possible war-time election.

Mr. Hall: No.

Mr. Morrison: I thought that was the point. However, that factor will be borne in mind. I do not disguise from the House that there will be plenty of difficulties over a period of years until the population has more or less settled down.

Major Petherick: Do the Government intend, in the legislation it is proposed to introduce, to alter the number of Members of Parliament at the present time or not?

Mr. Morrison: I think it would be premature to give an answer to that question, but it would be made clear, I hope, when the legislation is brought in.

Mrs. Hardie: Will the question of the abolition of plural voting also be considered?

Mr. Morrison: That would not arise on this Bill. That would have to be considered in relation to the arguments about electoral reform of a wider character.

Mr. George Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Craven-Ellis: On a point of Order. I have risen three or four times, Mr. Speaker, in order to put a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may rise as many times as he likes, but if he does not catch my eye, he is not entitled to address the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE (OFFICER'S PENSION)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Home Secretary whether he will see his way to provide for the recoupment to the local authority of a pension paid to an officer who was formerly a part-time unpaid volunteer in the Auxiliary Fire Service and was subsequently transferred to the National Fire Service and has been invalided out of that service?

Mr. H. Morrison: If my hon. and gallant Friend has a particular case in mind and will let me have details, I will have inquiry made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (PENSIONS)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take into consideration the condition of men in Northern Ireland who served in the Royal Irish Constabulary which was an armed force to the time of its dissolution and which passed through a period of open warfare during the disturbances preceding the Irish Settlement of 1922; and whether, in the review of pensions now taking place, the position of these men will have generous treatment?

Mr. H. Morrison: The circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers were taken into account at the time of the disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and, having regard to these special circumstances, Parliament made special provision for these men in the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1922. I know of no reason for revising the provision made by that Act.

Sir P. Hannon: Is not this one of the most disgraceful episodes in the story of recent Governments—the treatment of these ex-Royal Irish Constabulary; and may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he was in Northern Ireland the other day, cases were not brought to his notice of the desperate condition of many of these men? Would it be beyond the resources of his Department to put an end to the present position?

Mr. Shinwell: If it is a disgraceful episode, as is stated, is it not attributable, not to my right hon. Friend opposite and the present Government, but to the Conservative Government which my hon. Friend himself supported?

Oral Answers to Questions — MAJOR LEONARD CRIPPS (EXIT PERMIT)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Home Secretary on what grounds Major Leonard Cripps, of Liverpool, was granted an exit permit enabling him to visit America recently, in view of the fact that, since his arrival there, he has made public statements of a nature likely to damage American regard for this country and His Majesty's Government?

Mr. H. Morrison: An exit permit was granted to Major Cripps in his capacity as chairman of Elder Dempster Lines, Ltd., to enable him to visit that Company's organisations in Canada and the United States. I was advised by the competent Government Department that this visit was in the national interest. I have no knowledge of any such public statements as are referred to in the latter part of the Question.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Gentleman has been quoted in the American Press as saying that this is a "country of mad hatters" and that the British Government are "destroying civilisation by giving away all this blasted money," and is it not possible, when British citizens go abroad in war-time, to advise them to use a little discretion in public statements about their own country?

Mr. Morrison: I quite agree that as a general rule it is desirable, especially when the permit is given on business grounds, that the person should be very careful of any statement he makes, but I have not got full particulars of any of the statements referred to.

Sir H. Williams: Would it not be possible to send over his right hon. and learned brother as a counter-irritant?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS OVERSEAS (FRANCHISE)

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider favourably the proposal that civil servants serving overseas should, by post or by proxy, exercise the franchise?

Mr. H. Morrison: Under the existing law a civil servant, like anyone else who has the necessary residence qualification and satisfies the Registration Officer that there is a probability of his being abroad at the time of an election, can appoint a proxy; but the suggestion, I understand, is that Crown servants who are not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and therefore not entitled under the existing law to be registered for any constituency, should be given a special franchise, should be deemed to be resident in some constituency, and should be authorised to vote at any election in that constituency by post or by


proxy. Such a substantive amendment of the franchise law would be outside the scope of the proposed legislation dealing with electoral machinery, and falls into the category of questions for discussion when proposals for electoral reform are under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Part-time Wardens

Mr. Messer: asked the Home Secretary whether it is obligatory for part-time wardens to sign the log book reporting every entrance and exit to and from the wardens post in addition to signing the duty register?

Mr. H. Morrison: This is a matter which is left to the discretion of the local authority responsible for the wardens' service. In one instance in which a log book was instituted it had the salutary result of preventing unjustifiable claims for subsistence allowances, but so far I have not found it necessary to require this method to be standardised.

Mr. Messer: So I take it that where there is an arrangement, that would prevent the possibility of any difficulty arising if it is left to the local Civil Defence committee?

Fire Guard Duties (Railway Worker, Crewe)

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what steps he intends to take in regard to a workman in the goods transit shed at Crewe who refuses, in spite of summonses and fines, to take his duty as a fire-watcher; is he aware that this continued inaction of the authority is causing dissatisfaction among the other workmen, which may cause dislocation in traffic; and will he take such action as will impress the man who refuses the duty, and satisfy the men generally, that one man cannot continue to defy the Order and escape his responsibilities?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): This man has already been convicted and fined for failing to perform his fire prevention duty. If he persists in this failure without reasonable cause, further proceedings against him will be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEACHERS, NORTHERN IRELAND (REFRESHER COURSES, GREAT BRITAIN)

Dr. Little: asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue instructions to passport officials to grant travel permits to teachers in Northern Ireland who desire to take refresher courses in Britain during the holidays?

Mr. H. Morrison: Exit permits are granted to teachers in Northern Ireland to enable them to come to this country to take refresher courses if their applications are supported by the Ministry of Education, Northern Ireland.

Dr. Little: I have had many hard cases of that description brought to my notice during the week-end, including that of a young lady who had made application, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he will see that there is no holdup in the case of teachers who wish to equip themselves better for their work?

Mr. Morrison: I should think the young lady had better take the matter up in the first instance with the Ministry of Education in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY-ELECTIONS

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that Parliamentary by-elections covering considerable areas are permitted during the war, he will consider the advisability in connection with any extension of the Local Elections and Registered Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act of so amending it as to permit local government by-elections?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have further considered this question, but the fact that Parliamentary vacancies are filled by election and that many of these elections are contested is not, I think, a reason for holding that it would be right during the war to revive the peace-time practice of holding periodically elections all over the country for local authorities. The consideration must still be kept in mind that such a change would involve a serious diversion of time and attention from the war effort.

Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that it is possible to


have a Parliamentary by-election covering a wide area and impossible, apparently to have a local government by-election covering a very small area?

Mr. Morrison: It is not impossible, but I think, in view of the stresses to which local government officials are subjected, that it is undesirable. Moreover, there is the difficulty that some of the municipal wards have been so knocked about by the enemy that I am not sure how many electors are left in some cases.

Mr. Thorne: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if we had the municipal elections in November it would bring public questions before the notice of the people and in that way make for good citizenship?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, but if the municipal elections were held in November and other local government elections in March and April, including triennial county council elections, I think that would involve demands upon man-power which would be out of proportion to the necessities of the situation.

Mr. De la Bère: Has there not been far too much co-opting?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON LIBRARIES

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary whether consideration has been given during recent years to the constitution and adequate use of prison libraries; and whether qualified advisers have been consulted to secure better use of books in prisons?

Mr. H. Morrison: Various aspects of the question of the constitution and use of prison libraries have been considered during recent years, and changes have been made in the rules and practice with a view to improving both the facilities for obtaining books and the better use of those facilities. In the development of these plans, help and advice have been obtained from various quarters and especially from the librarians of county and borough libraries, whose assistance has been most valuable.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prison libraries still depend very largely upon gifts of books from outside and a few rejected books from the public libraries, and that a large number

of the books are crime stories which are interesting to the prisoners but not always beneficial?

Sir H. Williams: Is Hansard send to the libraries?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Secondary School Accommodation, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Mack: asked the President of the Board of Education what steps he is taking to remedy the inadequate secondary school facilities in Newcastle-under-Lyme, especially for girls; and what provision he intends making for those girls who have been turned out of their school in Westlands and are now being educated in an overcrowded building which had previously been condemned?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am aware that there is a deficiency of secondary school accommodation for girls in Newcastle-under-Lyme, though the schools in Stoke-on-Trent are available to Newcastle children at the normal fee. The local education authority are fully alive to the position and have plans for meeting the shortage of places by new provision as soon as circumstances permit. Meantime the possibility of hiring relief accommodation for the Orme Girls' School is being considered.
I am calling for a report from His Majesty's Inspector on the accommodation in use by the girls from the West-lands School and I will communicate with the hon. Member when I have considered it.

Mr. Mack: Does the Minister realise that some of these girls have to travel two or three miles to Stoke, where the available accommodation is already overtaxed, and adequate facilities are not afforded them? Will he take note of that in considering the report which will be submitted to him?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

School Children (Height and Weight)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Education, what information has been provided for him by local education committees, showing the present weight and height of schoolchildren as compared with pre-war periods?

Mr. Butler: Owing to shortage of staff only a few school medical officers have been able to include height and weight averages in their abbreviated annual reports. Such evidence as I have indicates that heights and weights of children have been well maintained.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to statements to the effect that there has been a substantial increase both in the weight and height among certain children, due to the superior economic position of their parents during war-time?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and if I had not been so modest, I should have exaggerated what I said. I think the hon. Member has put it very well, and I should like to endorse what he has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Private Enterprise

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health, whether consideration will be given to informing private enterprise building industry what is expected of them in the post-war housing programme and to not proceeding with local authority housing unless private enterprise is found to be incapable of dealing with post-war requirements?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): A sub-committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Felix Pole, is now examining the part that private enterprise can best play in post-war housing and the conditions under which it can most effectively operate.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long this Committee is going to sit before it makes its report, and further, whether private enterprise was approached on the question of the post-war programme before local authorities?

Mr. Brown: The Committee will report when it has done its work. The principal issue concerned is what will be the economic conditions in which private enterprise can play its part?

Mr. Shinwell: Will it not take a very long time for this Committee to find out how private enterprise can solve the housing problem?

Mr. Brown: There is a very great deal of information concerning the errors and fallacies about private enterprise housing over the first 10 years after the last war.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that if there is one thing which is decided to-day, it is that private enterprise has failed in the building of houses?

Mr. Brown: The answer is that in England and Wales private enterprise built 3,000,000 out of the 4,000,000 houses built between the two wars.

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health why, if subsidies are paid to local authorities for the building of certain types of houses, they cannot also be given to private enterprise to do the same kind of work?

Mr. Brown: The subsidies payable to local authorities are closely linked with their duty to clear the slums and abate overcrowding. The authorities are required to give preference to persons who are occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses, have large families or are living under unsatisfactory conditions, and many of them take advantage of the powers conferred on them to grant rebates from rent in appropriate cases.

Mr. Wakefield: If private enterprise were given the same opportunities as are given to local authorities, is it not likely that inefficiencies and delays would not occur?

Mr. Shinwell: If private enterprise can do the job so well, does it really require a subsidy?

Local Authorities

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health, as the rentals payable by occupiers of local authority houses completely liquidate the cost in 40 to 6o years, why, at the end of such period, is the house not conveyed freehold and free from encumbrance to the occupier?

Mr. E. Brown: The rent paid by the occupier of a local authority house is usually a heavily subsidised rent in no way comparable to the payment which would be required for purchase of the house.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Why cannot the people who occupy council houses, and


have paid for them over this period through their rents, own the houses at the end of the period? Why cannot they have possession and afterwards live rent free?

Mr. Brown: I have already answered that question.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether the occupiers of houses built in the post-war period by local authorities will be subjected to a means test; and, if not, what steps will be taken to prevent people occupying such houses who can afford to purchase their own and to avoid intensifying the hardships of the lesser-paid section of the working community as well as those with large families?

Mr. Brown: The general management, regulation and control of houses provided by local authorities is by Statute vested in and exercised by the authorities: they are required by Statute to secure that, in the selection of their tenants, a reasonable preference is given to persons who are occupying unsatisfactory or overcrowded houses, have large families or are living in unsatisfactory housing conditions and, in fixing rents, to take into consideration the rents ordinarily payable by working class tenants in the locality. They may grant to any tenant such rebate from rent as they may think fit and before doing so would take account of his economic circumstances.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it really correct that local authorities gave favourable consideration to parents with large families after the last war? Could not the subsidy be confined to those who are really in need, so that people with large families would get consideration?

Mr. Brown: I have stated the law on this question, and the hon. Member will see that there is no doubt that families did receive consideration from local authorities.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is it not the case that local authorities did not house families and that it was done by private enterprise?

Mr. Leach: Is there not an inevitable temptation on local authorities to secure as tenants people who can, first of all, afford to pay the rents?

Building Contracts (Inspection)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that after the last war there was a considerable amount of scamping in housing contracts by certain private builders; and, in order to prevent a repetition of this, will he lay strict injunctions on local authorities to see that adequate inspection is carried out so that sound materials are used in the erection of houses and care taken in their construction?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of these complaints, and one of the matters which are being examined by the sub-committee of my Central Housing Advisory Committee on Private Enterprise Housing is the method of ensuring, whether through local authorities or otherwise, what it is essential to ensure, namely, that the houses of the future are good houses in all respects.

Mr. Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Works to see that these firms are black-listed?

Mr. Brown: We are, of course, aware that bad houses were built under both systems.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman pay particular attention to the case in which one of his predecessors insisted upon a local authority building houses which the council decided were unfit for human habitation?

Mr. Brown: All the information in my Department has been surveyed and is available if necessary.

Mr. Kirkwood: Were not all the slums we have in Britain built by private enterprise?

Government Proposals

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health when he will be in a position to report on his consultations with local authorities respecting the shortage of housing accommodation and the requisitioning of empty houses and other means of meeting the increasing demand for accommodation?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes, in view of the increasing rents of flats and houses, to widen the scope of the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Health what bodies were represented at the recent conference of local authorities; what recommendations were made in the Report submitted by the conference to the Minister; whether the Report will be published; and what decisions have been taken on the recommendations?

Mr. E. Brown: The conference of local authorities which I arranged last month in view of the representations received from individual local authorities as to the increasing housing difficulties was composed of representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations, the London County Council, the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association.
The Report which this conference has sent to me as a result of a careful examination of the position stressed the need for immediate action and made specific recommendations. These dealt with the repair of houses, both to prevent further deterioration and to make additional accommodation available, and also with the more extended use of the requisitioning powers conferred by Defence Regulation and the establishment of an inter-Departmental Committee to review the whole field of rent restriction. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library and will be issued to the Press to-day. The Report has been considered by the Government, who accept the principle that after the demands for building for war purposes have been met, housing should have the first call on immobile building labour. I am in consultation with the Ministry of Labour and National Service and with the Ministry of Works as to the best method of giving effect to this principle. In view of the present situation, the Government have authorised me to delegate to local authorities power to requisition empty houses for the purpose of improving the conditions of families at present inadequately housed. Detailed instructions on the latter points will be issued to local authorities at an early date.
The Government have also decided that an inter-Departmental Committee on rent restriction should be set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, and there will be a further announcement as to the constitu-

tion of this Committee after the necessary consultations have taken place. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the valuable assistance which has been given to me by the representatives of local authorities in the consideration of this very difficult problem.

Sir Percy Harris: Will this Report be printed and available in the Vote Office, or is it to be only in the Library? It seems to me that a Report of such importance should be printed.

Mr. Brown: I will certainly consider that. It is a valuable Report. I will have it circulated in full, as I should like to meet the convenience of the House.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the Minister what further action is to be taken in order to meet the increasing urgency of the housing situation? Is he satisfied that the recommendations in that Report will go a long way towards meeting the situation?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will read the Report. I do not want to debate it now, but I can assure my hon Friend that it covers the immediate possibilities.

Mr. Walter Edwards: Is the Minister aware that his Department has recently refused the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney permission to repair 5o war-damaged houses and flats, and in view of the fact that the matter is one of extreme urgency, will he reconsider the position now and grant that permission?

Mr. Brown: In the light of this decision we shall consider with the Departments concerned the best way of giving effect to the principle set out in my answer.

Sir William Davison: Will the same facilities for materials be given to builders engaged by private owners as to local authorities?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Tuberculosis Treatment (Allowances)

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether the promised system of allowances for cases of tuberculosis undergoing remedial treatment is now in force; what steps he is taking to make it known to medical practitioners


in general; and whether he will issue a full statement amplifying his Circular 266/T in detail?

Mr. E. Brown: I have information that in 28 counties and 48 county boroughs the arrangements which I recently authorised are already in operation or will be in operation by the beginning of August, while the remaining authorities are at present completing the necessary administrative arrangements. The Memorandum 266T, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, contains full and detailed information about the scheme, and no reason for amplifying it has yet arisen. If my hon. Friend desires further information on any particular points, I shall be glad if he will let me know.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that medical practitioners often do not see these circulars, although it is upon them that the determination of these cases will rest, as well as upon district nurses and health visitors? Is it not necessary that these people should know these conditions, in order to be able to ferret out the cases?

Mr. Brown: At the moment I do not know of any reason to go further, but certainly will make sure that all concerned really know what is required of them.

Sir F. Fremantle: The last part of my Question asked about details. Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a meeting lately of county medical officers, the people most likely to know, it was clear that in a very large number of cases there were inquiries about details and the Memorandum certainly did not provide for them?

Mr. Brown: I think my hon. Friend will find that that difficulty has been cleared up.

Midwives' Salaries (Rushcliffe Committee's Report)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the Report of the Midwives' Salaries Committee; whether it is to be published; and what action he proposes to take on it?

Mr. E. Brown: Yes, Sir. I have received from my Noble Friend Lord Rushcliffe the Report of the Committee

which I appointed under his chairmanship. The report is being presented as a Command Paper, and copies will be available to-day in the Vote Office. The House will wish to join me to-day in offering congratulations to Lord Rushcliffe and the members of the Midwives' Salaries Committee. The new agreement will, I think, serve to encourage entrants into the profession and secure a more adequate remuneration for those already engaged in it. The total annual additional cost is likely to be at least £500,000. I am to-day communicating with local authorities and the British Hospitals Association, commending to them the recommendations as to salaries, emoluments, and conditions of service. I had intended to make a statement about domiciliary midwives but in view of the length of the statement I would ask hon. Members' permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT with the rest of the answer.

Mr. Messer: Has the local authority to provide part of the cost of the increase?

Mr. Brown: Oh yes, Sir, but the Government are prepared to make a grant equivalent to one-half of the additional expense incurred.

Mr. William Brown: Are we to understand that this scheme has been put before local authorities before this House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. E. Brown: I have always thought that this House desired Ministers to act with expedition in matters of administration.

Following is the rest, of the answer:

So far as domiciliary midwives are concerned, additional expenditure incurred by local supervising authorities through the adoption of the Committee's recommendations will rank for the statutory grant available under the Midwives Act, 1936. As regards midwives engaged in institutional midwifery, the Government are prepared, pending the settlement of the post-war health services, to assist both local authorities and voluntary hospitals in giving effect to the Committee's recommendations by making a grant equivalent to one-half the additional expenditure incurred in respect of such midwives. The Committee have included a recommendation on the question of a national uniform. The actual


provision of such uniforms must be conditioned by the supply position, but I accept in principle the recommendation that as soon as practicable I should submit to Parliament legislation empowering the Central Midwives Board to frame rules.

Midwifery Services, Gloucestershire

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the information sent to him relating to a shortage of 27 midwives and four sisters at maternity hospitals and for domiciliary visits in the county of Gloucester; and, as this is resulting in a lowered standard of care of patients in hospitals and in their homes, will he take steps to remedy the deficiency?

Mr. E. Brown: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is, in consultation with me, taking measures with a view to relieving the present shortage of midwives. Following a recent registration, women with midwifery qualifications are being interviewed and those who are suitable are being submitted for employment where they are most urgently required. I understand that some assistance has already been given under these arrangements to the midwifery services in Gloucestershire, and the needs of this area will certainly be kept in mind. I hope that the publication of the Report of the Midwives Salaries Committee, about which I made a statement a few minutes ago, will help to encourage recruitment to the midwifery profession.

Mr. Lipson: Will it be possible for one of the officers of the Department to go to the medical officer of health for the county to see whether anything else can be done?

Mr. Brown: I will consider that but we have already information on the deficiency.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that conditions are very bad in this respect in many parts of Worcestershire?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES' STAFFS (TRANSFERENCE, PENSION)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that certain employees of local authorities, who have

given satisfactory service for as long as 20 years and who would normally receive a superannuation allowance on retirement, are losing all expectation of such an allowance by being transferred to other employment under Regulation 58A; and whether he will take steps to remedy this hardship?

Mr. E. Brown: The superannuation rights of an employee of a local authority who ceases to serve the authority in order to undertake war service are preserved by the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, and I have recognised as war service for purposes of that Act any employment to which an employee of a local authority is transferred in pursuance of a direction given by the Minister of Labour and National Service under Defence Regulation 58A. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular giving such recognition.

Mr. Messer: Is the Minister aware that under the Act it is possible that a superannuable person may become non-superannuable because he has taken up Civil Defence duties?

Mr. Brown: I would like notice of that Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME HELPS

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health whether, in the interests of mothers and of control of children, as a war-time measure, he will agree to the provision by local authorities of home helps in special cases where mothers with families have been deprived of, and are unable to obtain, domestic help due to the requirements of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. E. Brown: Home helps are provided by local authorities under powers which authorise them to make arrangements for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and of young children. In view of the urgency of meeting the needs of women unable to make satisfactory arrangements of their own at the time of their confinement, I have in a recent Circular particularly directed the attention of authorities to the assistance which might be given to meet these cases.

Mr. Adams: The Minister has not answered the Question on the Paper as to whether he can render some assistance in


the matter of home helps to the overworked mothers of families who, due to domestic cares, are unable to attend to their children, which is creating large numbers of hooligans.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will see that I have answered his Question by implication. It is quite clear that preference must be given to expectant and nursing mothers and those with growing children. Some local authorities have been so successful with their schemes of home helps that they are extending their availability and making the best use they can of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DESTROYED COMMODITIES

Mr. Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that approximately 16 cwts. of onion seed were incinerated in the King's Pike, Victoria Dock, at the beginning of June; and to what extent tobacco and other goods on which duty has not been paid are still being destroyed in this way instead of being used to the national advantage?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): Yes, Sir. At the instance of the Ministry of Agriculture, the onion seed in question was destroyed, as it was worthless for the purpose for which is had been imported, and no alternative use for it could be found. As regards the second part of the Question, arrangements are in operation under which damaged or deteriorated tobacco is wherever practicable either reconditioned or delivered for use in nicotine factories; sound tobacco seized under the Customs laws is disposed of by sale or by distribution to appropriate recipients. The same principle is followed generally in regard to other goods, namely, that no goods are destroyed for which a suitable use, if necessary with remission of duty, under proper safeguards, can be found.

Oral Answers to Questions — OCCUPIED ITALIAN TERRIORY (EXCHANGE RATE)

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to make a statement on the exchange rate fixed for the occupied territory of Italy?

Sir K. Wood: The rate of exchange for the lira in those parts of Metropolitan Italy now in the occupation of the Allied Forces has been fixed at 400 lire to £1 or 5o lire to $1. This rate has been fixed in agreement with the Government of the United States and after taking into account, so far as possible, all relevant economic factors. In a case like the present there are obvious difficulties in assessing the relevant factors at their proper value. Neither the official prices and exchange rates on the one hand nor the very different black market prices and exchange rates on the other form a reliable guide. Moreover, the position and prospects of the lira are entirely changed and will continue to be affected by the fact of invasion itself. In the presence of so many imponderable considerations the provisional rate of 400 was fixed.
I may add that it is not proposed to alter the rate of 480 lire to £1 effective in occupied Italian territories in North Africa. This rate is well established and is working satisfactorily. The considerations affecting the African territories are different from those affecting Metropolitan Italy and the two areas can conveniently be dealt with separately.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In view of the transcendent importance of this decision, both for its own sake and for precedent, and of the need for securing public acceptance that it justly represents purchasing power parity, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider whether there are any data which he can publish which will commend the acceptance of this figure to the public as a whole?

Sir K. Wood: I will consider that.

Sir H. Williams: Could the Chancellor say what steps have been taken to avoid trafficking between North Africa and Sicily? If you travel the right way, you can make 8o lire to the pound.

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

Sir H. Williams: But it is a very important matter. I ask, What steps is the Chancellor taking to avoiding trafficking in lire? It is easy to make a lot of money.

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that Question on the paper.

Mr. G. Strauss: How are the exchange rates of the pound and the dollar into Italian currency reconciled with the existing exchange rates between the pound and the dollar direct, which is four dollars to the pound?

Sir K. Wood: I have said that there are various factors in this matter. It is impracticable to come, I think, to what you might call a logical conclusion. This is the best decision that has been arrived at by the two Governments.

Earl Winterton: Is the Chancellor aware that the point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) represents the view held strongly in different parts of this House, and will he attach the greatest importance to arriving at an eventual decision which will be fair to all parties concerned?

Sir K. Wood: The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I would give some further information on this matter, and I said that I would endeavour to do so.

Sir A. Knox: Is it fair that our prisoners only get 72 lire to the pound?

At the end of Questions:

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would you permit me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was not an error in the figure he read out in reply to me with regard to the American dollar?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am afraid that when I said 5o lire to the dollar, it ought to have been 100 lire. It was a mistake on my part.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK PASTEURISATION

Mr. Rickards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will issue a White Paper giving his reasons for recommending that many people should be obliged to drink pasteurised milk, although for various causes they strongly object to doing so?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): My Noble Friend has nothing to add to what has been said in Command Paper 6454.

Mr. Leach: Can there be any reason for advocating this if you have got the right stock?

Mr. Mabane: I have nothing to add to my answer.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that the Minister has advocated the use of pasteurised milk, why does the new milk scheme provide for the distribution of accredited milk?

Mr. Mabane: I think that is a different question from the one on the Paper.

Mr. Rickards: If the Minister has a good case, would it not be a very good thing to publish it to help to persuade many people in the country who are so opposed to this scheme? Is it not better in a democratic country to use persuasion?

Mr. Speaker: This appears to be an argument, and not a question to ascertain facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SERVICE (RECOGNITION)

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the recognition that is to be made of men and women who have served in the Armed Forces at home and abroad, those who have been wounded, and making it applicable to all Services?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): A full statement on this subject will be made to the House before we rise.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S SERVICES (POSTWAR USE)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Prime Minister whether any action is proposed by the Government to carry out the suggestions in Section 19 of the Report on the Women's Services that members of the Auxiliary Services should form part of the Armed Forces for work in Europe and elsewhere after the war?

The Prime Minister: The future organisation of the Women's Services after general demobilisation cannot be considered apart from that of the Armed Forces as a whole, and the time has not yet come to determine policy on this whole question. The Government can, however, state that for some time after hostilities have ceased in any area the Women's Auxiliary Services will, still be needed. In particular, members of the Auxiliary Services will be needed to


accompany the Forces of Occupation so soon as conditions permit of their being sent overseas.
Members of the Women's Auxiliary Services and of the Civil Defence Services, when and in so far as they can be spared, will be given opportunities to volunteer for appointments in the administration of liberated territories during the period of military control. In so far as opportunities may arise under the proposed United Nations' relief organisation, members of these Services, in common with suitable candidates from other sources, will be eligible to volunteer for appointments, provided that they can be spared from their Services. The number of appointments, both during the period of military control and under the proposed relief organisation, is likely to be very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN OFFICERS (BATMEN)

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that women officers are not allowed batmen, he will consider granting them the equivalent in allowances in lieu thereof?

The Prime Minister: When this matter was considered some time ago the decision was adverse. The question is, however, constantly under review.

Mrs. Keir: Does my right hon. Friend not think that where men and women officers are doing exactly the same job they should be granted the same personal assistance?

The Prime Minister: I think that uniformity should be mitigated by general convenience and custom.

Mr. Thorne: Would it not be possible for women officers to have men for batmen?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Land Under Cultivation

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the statement in the agricultural survey to the effect that there was 2 per cent. less land under cultivation at a period some three years after the commencement of hostilities than was under cultivation before that period, he can state the approximate number of acres represented by this 2 per cent.?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not prepared to amplify the statistical information issued recently by my Department with reference to wartime agriculture in the direction requested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not think it desirable that the public should know just how much less land is under cultivation? Does not the ordinary man in the street think that a greater amount of land has been ploughed up than is actually under cultivation? Will he do something about it? It is a very important matter indeed. Could I have an answer?

Mr. Price: Has the reduction in food production caused by this decrease in the amount of land under cultivation been made good by an increase in the amount of production per acre of cultivated land?

Mr. Hudson: The fact that food production is estimated to be 70 per cent. greater than pre-war shows that we have done a great deal more than make good the loss.

Mr. De la Bère: In view of that monstrous evasion, I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Bulls (Cheshire) (Control) Order

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the Bulls (Cheshire) (Control) Order, 1943, which was signed on 29th June, 1943, and came into operation on 12th July, 1943, provided that in certain parts of Cheshire bulls should be kept in a building or yard or securely tethered in a field during the period from 30th June to 1st October in each year; and whether he will state the purpose of the Order?

Mr. Hudson: This Order is designed to assist the production of winter milk by preventing the premature service of dairy heifers on neighbouring farms by bulls not kept under proper control. This trouble has been particularly prevalent in Cheshire, and before making the Order I satisfied myself that there was general support in the county for the proposed system of control.

Farm Machinery (Spare Parts)

Mr. Shephard: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the need for all agricultural machinery to be


available for the harvesting of this year's crops, he will take steps to speed up deliveries of spare parts?

Mr. Hudson: Manufacturers and importers of farm machinery have already been told that spare parts should have priority over new machines, and the tonnage of spare parts manufactured in this country and imported is considerably greater for the 1943 harvest than for the 1942.

Warble Fly

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the successful treatment of the warble-fly pest by the use of salt and water; and whether he proposes to take any action to encourage the use of this simple remedy?

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware that salt and water have been used successfully for destroying the maggots of the warble fly, but I shall be happy to consider any information which my hon. and gallant Friend can supply.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the great loss of leather and beef through this pest, would not the Minister himself explore all the simple remedies that are possible, rather than throw the responsibilty upon me?

Bovine Tuberculosis (Immunisation)

Major York: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of his Department to encourage, or to ignore, the homœopathic treatment for immunising cattle against tuberculosis, which has been brought to his notice?

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member far Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) on 3rd June, in which I said that there is no scientific evidence that homœopathic treatment has any value for immunisation against tuberculosis.

Major York: Is the Minister aware that there are already over 8o dairy farmers using this treatment; and is it not, therefore, in the interests of the industry that he should look into the matter?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir. I have said that there is no scientific evidence available so far as I am aware.

Major York: Is it not that the veterinary profession would lose business by its adoption?

Milk Churns (Cleaning)

Colonel Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture what complaints he has received from dairy farmers as to the want of cleanliness of milk churns returned empty to them from factories; and whether any Order exists compelling dairy factories to wash and sterilise churns after emptying, in order to prevent contamination in the next filling of new milk into these churns?

Mr. Hudson: Such complaints are received from time to time. I am informed, however, that there has been considerable improvement in the cleanliness of milk churns returned to producers as a result of advisory work at creameries and dairies carried out by advisory bacteriologists under the National Milk Testing and Advisory Scheme. Under the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, buyers of milk are required to return churns to producers in a clean condition, and producers are required to ensure that milk is only put into clean containers. I have recently given publicity to this matter.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the new milk distribution scheme came in all the churns have been in the hands of big distributors, and that the churns are very much more dirty than they used to be? Will he see that they are not cleaned out by machinery only, but, as formerly, by a man or a girl with a brush?

Wheat and Rye (Acreage Payment)

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the withholding of acreage payment for a crop of wheat or rye which has been heavily patched with barley will create serious anomalies in that the payment will be made if a crop of winter-sown wheat or rye has been a total failure, through no fault of the farmer's, and the land has been re-ploughed and re-sown; and whether he is prepared to modify this condition of the scheme?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. I have considered this point, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we have decided that crops of wheat and rye that have


partially failed and have been heavily patched with barley may be eligible for acreage payment on the same terms as apply to other patched crops.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALGERIAN WINE (PRICE)

Major Petherick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why Algerian wine which originally cost the equivalent of about 3d. a bottle, and which was bought by His Majesty's Government, can only be bought by the public at the equivalent of 8s. a bottle?

Mr. Mabane: The retail price approved for Algerian wines includes duty at the rate of 2s. 10d. a bottle, and has been calculated by my Department to cover freight, insurance, landing charges, storage, bottling and the costs of wholesale and retail distribution on a basis comparable with that agreed for recent imports of Dominion wines. Notwithstanding the low price at which it is intended to be offered to the consumer, it will also, I hope, show a small but welcome profit to my Department.

Major Petherick: What is the profit, in view of the fact that my hon. Friend has said that this wine was bought in Algeria at 1s. 6d. a gallon and that it is sold to the first intermediary at 8s. a gallon?

Mr. Mabane: About 4 per cent.

Mr. Mathers: How comes it that wine is a matter for the Ministry of Food? What is its food value?

Commander Locker-Lampson: Can we have a sample of Algerian wine in the House of Commons?

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHING AND FOOTWEAR (SUPPLIES TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES)

Dr. Little: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make arrangements whereby none of the material, such as clothing and footwear, required to meet the needs of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom will, under any consideration, be supplied to a neutral State?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): Exports of clothing and footwear are

under strict control, and the requirements of this country are fully taken into account in deciding what exports of these goods to neutral countries can be allowed.

Dr. Little: Things which are needed here ought not to go to a neutral State. I would ask whether, in face of the black market and smuggling, far closer supervision could be exercised regarding clothing, footwear and such things?

Captain Waterhouse: I do not think that smuggling comes within the province of my Department.

Professor Savory: Is the neutral country sending us any butter in exchange for this clothing, or has it put an embargo upon exports of butter for the last two years?

Captain Waterhouse: I would like to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR TRAINING CORPS (GLIDING)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any statement to make on the progress of gliding in the Air Training Corps?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Progress in glider training in the Air Training Corps has been reasonably satisfactory, having regard to difficulties of supply, training of instructors, etc. In the last I8 months some 64,000 launches have been given to Air Training Corps cadets who are potential aircrew, and some 14,000 launches to instructors and instructors under training. Twenty-nine elementary gliding schools and two special schools for instructors are in operation. Over 5,000 cadets have achieved varying degrees of proficiency, and some 2,000 have received dual instruction in two-seater gliders. Over 100 instructors have fully qualified as such, and another 200 are under training. The scheme has now been further speeded up, the aim being to increase the number of elementary gliding schools to 100. As I have indicated, the rate of expansion is limited by difficulties of supply, which in turn restricts the training of instructors, but I am hopeful that this useful form of training for cadets will be considerably extended over the next few months.

Mr. Bossom: While thanking the Under-Secretary for that reply, might I ask


whether he will do his utmost to extend this scheme as quickly as possible?

Captain Balfour: That was the purport of my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITORS' FEES

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor's Department has approved the request of the Law Society for an increase in solicitors' fees?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has not yet had an opportunity of considering this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST

Nutrition Inquiry

Mr. Salt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances the inquiry into nutrition in the Gold Coast was recently abandoned; and whether he can give any explanation of this?

Mr. A. S. L. Young (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to an inquiry into nutrition in the Gold Coast, which was carried out by a medical officer of the Colony in 1940. I understand that this inquiry was, in fact, completed, but my right hon. and gallant Friend is making inquiries from the Governor.

Gin Imports

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will explain the reason for the increase in the importation of gin from 8,000 to 31,000 gallons during the past year into the Gold Coast; whether this was done at the request of those in authority there; and whether immediate steps will be taken to lessen considerably this increased supply of gin which is so harmful to the natives?

Mr. Young: The actual imports of gin into the Gold Coast during the years 1941 and 1942 were 13,801 and 31,109 gallons respectively, and were thus considerably below the permissible quota under the local legislation, which was 73,500 gallons in both years. This quota is based on the average annual consump-

tion for the period 1931–1939. No change is contemplated at present in the policy regarding the importation of gin, which was unanimously endorsed by the African Members of the Legislative Council when the Gold Coast Geneva and Gin (Restriction of Importation) Ordinance was passed in 1939.

Dr. Little: As the minds of many both in Church and State are seriously disturbed by this increased importation of gin into the Gold Coast, would my hon. Friend put before his right hon. and gallant Friend the Colonial Secretary the necessity of drawing the line and taking away this temptation from the natives as it is gin which is proving so harmful in cutting down production?

Mr. Young: The importation is not what it was pre-war.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this gin is consumed by the native population or the white people, and, if the latter, how much it represents per head?

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CEMETERIES, AFRICA

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether Dr. Worthington, who had been appointed principal architect for North Africa and Egypt to advise on the planning and construction of cemeteries of the present war, will be allowed to extend his investigations to East Africa and Abyssinia?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I regret that Dr. Worthington will not be able, with the time at his disposal, to extend his inquiry to Ethiopia and East Africa. The Imperial War Graves Commission is, however, taking the necessary steps in regard to the cemeteries in these two areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR (BASKET SALES)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the public sale of goods made by Italian prisoners of war in the Chippenham, Wiltshire area; whether he is aware that some of the baskets made by the prisoners are being sold at 12s. 6d.; and what he intends doing about the matter?

Mr. A. Henderson: I am aware of this case. Only one prisoner was concerned and disciplinary action has been taken against him. The guard concerned with the case is appearing before a court-martial.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the resolution of the Cowdenbeath Town Council, forwarded to him by the honourable Member for West Fife, on increased soldiers' pay and dependants' allowances; and whether he will take steps to implement the terms of this resolution?

Mr. A. Henderson: The resolution referred to by my hon. Friend has been considered. I would, however, refer him to the reply given by the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Leicester (Major Lyons) on 6th May.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware of the very bitter feeling in the Forces and the country at the mothers of our fighting men having to submit to a means test, and particularly at the scurvy trick of reducing allowances as a result of the soldier getting promotion and consequently an increase in his allotment, and will he, at any rate, put a stop to the reduction of these allowances?

Mr. Henderson: I hesitate to give any undertaking that I might not be able to carry out, but I am not aware that there has been any unjustifiable reduction in the allowances that are payable under Regulations.

Mr. Galacher: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if a soldier gets promotion to corporal another 3s. 6d. of the allotment goes to his mother and that that 3s. 6d. is immediately taken off the small allowance that the Government make to the mother? Is he not aware of that, and will he put the matter right?

Mr. Henderson: It is correct to say that in regard to the payment of dependants' allowance an element of means test comes into the calculation, but I am sure that my hon Friend will not expect me in reply to a Supplementary Question to deal with Government policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (STATUTORY RULE AND ORDER)

Major Petherick: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many successful and how many unsuccessful prosecutions have taken place under Statutory Rule and Order No. 1206 of 1940?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): I regret that the information is not available and could not be obtained without considerable research and inquiry.

Major Petherick: In view of the importance of the subject, will my hon. and gallant Friend be good enough to make inquiries in order to give me the information?

Captain Pilkington: I cannot undertake to do that. It would mean asking all local police authorities all round the coast to make these inquiries, and I do not think the information to be gained would really be worth all that.

Major Petherick: Could not my hon. and gallant Friend merely ask the chief constables in the counties concerned, as there are only about ten or a dozen who would need to be asked?

Sir H. Williams: Is not the reason that the information is not obtained the fact that the Admiralty is in a mess over this Order?

Captain Pilkington: I regret to say that my hon. Friend is wrong.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that the Admiralty has been in a mess for the last four months, and is it not time it cleared it up?

Captain Pilkington: I merely repeat what I have already said.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like in a word to say how we in Scotland stand in relation to the housing measures announced to-day by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
The priority now accorded generally to housing needs in the allocation of immobile local labour (second only to war


building) will, I hope, enable essential repairs and maintenance to be overtaken, and in some areas it should also facilitate the conversion of vacant premises such as shops and offices, into living accommodation. Scots local authorities will be given the same new requisitioning powers as the English authorities are to receive, so as to cover all classes of persons who are in need of housing accommodation. And the inquiries of the Committee the Minister of Health and I are appointing jointly to review rent restriction will, of course, extend to conditions in Scotland. But, further, the Government appreciate that the problem of excessive rents for furnished accommodation is one of great urgency in Scotland, and this has been emphasised by a recent decision of the High Court in Scotland. We have been considering what is the most suitable machinery that can be devised to deal with the problem. I am now incorporating definite proposals in a Bill which I hope to introduce into Parliament before we rise for the Summer Recess. The Bill wiI1 provide for the setting up where necessary of local tribunals to deal with complaints of overcharging for furnished accommodation.

Mr. Mathers: My right hon. Friend has not made any mention of the question of excessive charges for housing accommodation. Will this matter be dealt with in the proposed Measure or by a separate method?

Mr. Johnston: The Measure which I propose to introduce will deal exclusively with the question of overcharging for furnished lettings.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can my right hon. Friend tell us how many houses we shall get in Clydebank this year as a result of the Measure he is bringing in?

Mr. Johnston: That is another point altogether. The Measure I propose to introduce deals exclusively with the question of overcharging, extortionate charges, for furnished lettings.

Mr. McNeil: It was rather difficult to follow my right hon. Friend—I know it was not his fault—and I would like him to clear up two points. First, what powers of appeal is he allowing people whose property will be requisitioned, and, secondly, will the local tribunals which

it is proposed to set up be competent to deal with the rents of sub-let unfurnished rooms?

Mr. Johnston: As regards my hon. Friend's second point, sub-lets of unfurnished dwellings are now covered by the terms of the Rent Restrictions Acts. As regards his first point, he had better await the terms of the Bill.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can state the Business for our next series of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Yes, Sir. The Business for our next series of Sittings will be as follows:
First Sitting Day—Supply (20th Allotted Day), Report. The Estimate for the Department of Overseas Trade will be considered; At the hour appointed the Report stage of all outstanding Supply Votes will be put from the Chair; Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill and of the Nurses (Scotland) Bill.
Second Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. A Debate will take place on Agriculture; Committee and remaining stages of the Coal Bill [Lords] and of the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Bill [Lords].
Third and Fourth Sitting Days—a Debate on Educational Reconstruction will take place on the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the President of the Board of Education.

[That this House welcomes the intention of the Government to proceed with educational reform, as evidenced in the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction.]

Mr. Tinker: Has any consideration been given to the question of giving a report to Parliament on the war situation before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Eden: The situation, of course, changes from day to day. I rather doubt whether, under present conditions, a war statement is likely before the House rises, but I would not like to pledge myself.

Mr. A. Bevan: Did not the right hon. Gentleman give what amounted to a pledge, when the Prime Minister made his last statement on the war situation, that there would be an early Debate on the war situation? Is it not quite intolerable that Parliament should rise for the Recess without discussing the very many important decisions which the Government have already made in many theatres of war? May I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that before the Recess he must provide the House with an opportunity of discussing the war? The House of Commons has not contracted out of the war yet.

Mr. Eden: I am not aware of any pledge, nor am I aware of any general demand for a Debate on the war at the present time. I think the general feeling of the House is to wish to give its maximum assistance to the military operations which are developing at the moment, not altogether unsatisfactorily. But, as I say, naturally the position will be reviewed between now and the rising of the House, and the desires of the House will be borne in mind.

Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Regulations in connection with old age pensions will be introduced before the House rises?

Mr. Eden: My hope—which must not be considered as a definite pledge—is that they will be introduced before the House rises.

Captain Crowder: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade will open the Debate on the first Sitting Day of the next series?

Mr. Eden: I will consider that. He will, of course, take part in the Debate.

Mr. Maxton: There are two points which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Nowadays, it is the practice on Supply Days to debate all sorts of subjects which are not connected with the particular Ministry whose Vote is before the Committee of Supply. Can he now give us any indication of what we are going to talk about when the Vote for the Department of Overseas Trade is taken? My second point is this: The Minister of Labour has made a statement in the country about compelling boys of 16 to go into the mines. That seems to

be a new departure in the way of interference with freedom, and I think it is desirable that the matter should be discussed in this House. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an opportunity for doing so will be provided.

Mr. Eden: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, it is not for me to regulate the Rules of Order governing these discussions on Supply Days, but I understand that on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers there is a desire to discuss the question of export trade. As regards the second part of the hon. Member's question, I have not had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I should like to have an opportunity of doing so before I give a considered answer, but I should imagine that, in any circumstances, my right hon. Friend would wish, in due course, to make a statement to this House.

Mr. Thorne: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in the event of Sicily being captured, a statement will not be made in this House before the Adjournment?

Mr. Eden: There is a very good cookery book which has a very good recipe—"First catch your hare."

Mr. Stokes: May I go back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and ask the Leader of the House whether he will study the remarks which he himself made on 8th June when the Prime Minister made his last statement? I understood from what he said then that there was, at any rate, an implied promise that an opportunity would be given at an early date for a further Debate on the war. Further, especially in view of the point which the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has raised, is it not the case that there are other subjects which hon. Members wish to raise, and should we not have an opportunity of doing so before the House rises for the Recess?

Mr. Eden: I do not remember having given, and I do not think I could have given, any such promise. My only desire is that the House should have a discussion if the House feels that the moment is propitious and that a discussion would be useful to the progress of the war, which is our common concern. I think the


general feeling at the present moment is that as far as the military aspect is concerned, perhaps a discussion would not be helpful.

Major Petherick: In regard to the revolutionary proposal to discuss the Estimates of the Department of Overseas Trade, will it be possible during that Debate to have any general review of the question of the exchange rate with Sicily which was mentioned at Question Time today, in view of the fact that the problem will be one of exports to Sicily?

Mr. Eden: It is not for me to give a Ruling on how far that subject would be in Order on that occasion.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it intended to-day to take the Report and Third Reading stages of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Bill?

Mr. Eden: I very much hope that it may be possible to do so, in order that the Bill may go to another place and that the tribunals may be set up as soon as possible.

Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Debate on agriculture is to be of a general nature, or is to be confined to the Minister's recent statement?

Mr. Eden: The Debate will be on the Consolidated Fund Bill, so that it can range widely.

Mr. Bevan: Should we be correct in assuming that the statement made by the Minister of Labour on the recruitment of young men to the mining industry was made without first consulting the members of the War Cabinet, or was it a statement of Government policy?

Mr. Eden: I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of Business, but, as I have said, I understand that discussions are proceeding, and I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour in due course, if he has a statement to make, will make it to the House.

Mr. Bevan: Should not a statement of such gravity have been made in the House and not outside?

Mr. Eden: I have already dealt with that. I have no doubt that when a statement is to be made, my right hon. Friend will make it to the House.

Mr. Bevan: But the statement has been made.

Professor Savory: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that for over two years we have had no opportunity of discussing the Estimates for the Dominions Office; and whether we shall be given an opportunity of discussing the relations between the Dominions Office and Eire?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid not, under our programme as at present arranged. I have just announced the Business for the 20th Allotted Day.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Banbury Water) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Harrogate) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wetherby District Water) Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I would like to explain briefly to the House the circumstances in which this Bill has been brought before the House. Under Section 8 of the British North America Act, a census of the population of Canada is required to be taken in the year 1871, and in every tenth year thereafter. In accordance with this provision, a census was taken in 1941. Section 51 of the Act provides that, on the completion of the census in any year, the representation of the Canadian Provinces in the House of Commons of Canada shall be readjusted, in accordance with the provisions of that Section. The Canadian Government and Parliament consider that under war conditions it is unnecessary and undesirable that there should be a change in the representation until after the cessation of hostilities, and an Address has been presented to His Majesty the King by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament asking that the necessary legislative provisions should be made to postpone such redistribution until after the cessation of hostilities.
The reason why the matter comes before this House is this: There is no power conferred by the Act of 1867 on the Canadian Parliament to deal with this matter. From time to time, the question has been discussed in Canada of whether some method should not be devised in order that Canada should amend its own Constitution, but there has never been any agreement on that. At the time of the passing of the Statute of Westminster, an express provision was made at the request of the Government of Canada, taking out from the general


powers then conferred any power to amend or repeal the British North America Act, and the procedure therefore for amending the British North America Act remains as it was before the Statute of Westminster. This procedure has for many years been followed on the basis of an Address presented to the King by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, and that is what has been done on this occasion. I understand that the Address was carried in both Houses by very large majorities. The Clauses of the Bill follow substantially the terms of the Address passed in the Canadian Parliament, and the Recital corresponds closely with that adopted on the last occasion on which similar legislation was passed here. The Canadian Parliament is rising at the end of the week, and lion. Members will naturally sympathise with the Members of the House of Commons of Canada in their desire to know just how they stand or rather how they sit. We have had a request that we should pass this legislation through this House as soon as possible, and that is why it has been introduced in another place and has come down to us to-day.

Sir Percy Harris: As one who has recently been in Canada, I should like to say a few words on this Bill. As the House knows, they have not got a national Government in Canada, and party politics remain in force there. I had an opportunity of discussing this particular question with members of all parties, and I found that there was a general desire that this agreement should be confirmed and that these powers of postponing electoral reform until after the war should he accorded to the Government of Canada.

Mr. Mander: I desire to facilitate the passage of the Measure in every way, but there is one point that I should like to raise and ask the right hon. Gentleman to comment on. I have received a communication from the Dominion of Canada pointing out that the Measure now before us was objected to by one Province and met with a certain amount of opposition in the two Houses of Parliament. In view of the fact that these representations have been made, would the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent there appears to be any difference of opinion among the Provinces?

Mr. Lewis: I should like to call attention to the very sensible suggestion made by Canada that the question of redistribution should await the termination of hostilities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be about to address the House on redistribution in this country. That is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Maxton: I should like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). I accept the assurance of the right hon. baronet that during his very short visit to Canada he got a complete low-down on the whole situation, but I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us precise particulars of how this was brought before the two Houses in Canada, what debate took place, and what opposition was expressed.

Mr. Attlee: I have no detailed information with regard to the Debate. My information is that it was carried in both Houses by very large majorities. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will consult with his Leader as to the specific point that he put. I have no information as to any Province objecting, but, in any case, the matter is brought before us by an Address voted by both Houses of Parliament, and it is difficult for us to look behind that fact. After all, in this House we carry things, and sometimes we have minorities, but they become the act of the Legislature.

Mr. Maxton: This is a question of tampering with the Constitution. I think the view held by most people would be that when you are starting to interfere with a Constitution it should not be done if there is a substantial minority objecting. All I want to know is whether there was a substantial minority, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us he is absolutely uninformed on the subject. I do not think that is treating the House rightly.

Mr. Attlee: I do not know what the hon. Members' interpretation would be of a substantial minority. I am informed that it was passed by large majorities in both Houses, and, if the majorities were large, presumably the minority was small.

Mr. Stephen: I thought I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that all parties were in agreement in Canada with regard to this legislation, but it appears from what he has said subse-


quently that that is not the case. There are parties which are not in agreement. He also says that the fact that both Houses have passed it should be sufficient for this House. The fact that the Act laid it down that this House had to give its assent to any such changes also shows that this House has a certain interest in the matter to see that minorities are not simply steam-rollered by majorities. I think the right hon. Gentleman might have taken the trouble to inform himself a little more fully as to the position in Canada. He seems to know very little about it. That is not the proper way for the responsible Minister to bring it before the House.

Sir Edward Grigg: I suggest that it is really improper in present circumstances for the House to question the discretion of a sovereign Parliament in the Commonwealth of Nations. It is only owing to a technical legislative peculiarity that it comes to the House at all, and it is very improper that the House should question the discretion of a national and absolutely sovereign Parliament. I hope that that will be accepted by the House and that this legislation will be passed without further comment.

Mr. Price: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that we ought not to discuss the matter, but I think we ought to ask why a sovereign Parliament in one of our great Dominions has to be before us at all. I really think it is an anomaly, and, though it may not be possible to get rid of it at this moment, I hope my right hon. Friend may be able to give us an assurance that at some future date, as early as possible, it will be got rid of.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Surely the whole question depends on Section 7 (r), of the Act of Westminster, which was expressly put in at the request of Canada. I think that meets the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). It was put in in order to protect the interests of certain minorities in Canada who at that period desired that, in the event of any change being requested by the Canadian Parliament which they themselves did not unite in, there should remain the possibility of this Parliament protecting the interests of the minority. It is an entirely exceptional

position placed in the Act at the express request of the Canadian Government desiring that Parliament in those circumstances should be the final court of decision. We should all wish in the present circumstances, without needless Debate, to agree to the request of the Canadian Parliament, which has been made, we understand, by the decision of a large majority, but, if such an unhappy event were to arise, though there is no reason to contemplate that it ever will arise, this provision has been placed in the Statute of Westminster at the request of Canada, and it so remains until Canada desires an alteration.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not a fact that the Bill has been brought before the House at the request of the Canadian Government itself, and, consequently, the House ought to act on the matter in the shortest space of time left it by the request of the Canadian Government? Any delay that may arise owing to peccadilloes which may suggest themselves to hon. Members must delay the desire of the Canadian Government.

Mr. Attlee: I may correct my hon. Friend on one point. In substance he is right, but actually it is the request of the two Chambers of the Legislature, and not the Government.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House [Mr. James Stuart] and immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1943

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament: for securing the public


safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have to ask the Committee for a further Vote of Credit to meet the expenses on the war, but in view of our recent Debates on finance, I propose to confine my remarks simply to the Vote of Credit itself. The last Vote of Credit is likely to be exhausted before the end of August, and in view of the forthcoming Recess, it is necessary to make this further provision now. The new sum of £1,000,000,000 should suffice to cover our expenditure until early in November next, When I asked the Committee for the last Vote of Credit, on 25th May, I said that the rate of expenditure in the first few weeks of the financial year had been about £13,500,000 a day, of which about £11,000,000 was on the Fighting and Supply Services, leaving £2,500,000 for miscellaneous war services. I then explained how the Vote of Credit in the present financial year will be affected by the different arrangements made by the Government of Canada in the generous help they are giving us, and that the effect of the change is to reduce the totals of the Vote of Credit expenditure below what otherwise would be necessary and that this has to be borne in mind in any comparison that may be made with statements about the amount of previous rates of expenditure.
Up to the present the average daily rate of war expenditure since the beginning of April has been about £13,250,000. Expenditure on the Fighting and Supply Services has remained at £11,000,000 a day, and on miscellaneous war services there is a drop of about £250,000 a day. That drop is of no particular significance. It so happens that during June a varied list of services required less than in April or May, and there were also some special receipts. I also explained on the last occasion that the rate of expenditure in the early weeks of this financial year was not necessarily a guide to the prospective rates for the future. During the first quarter of this year we spent cash on supplies from Canada which in future will be largely sent to us on Lend-Lease terms without payment. We also received

certain non-recurring sums for current assets purchased by the Canadian Government, and these sums were used to reduce the amount which it was necessary to issue out of the Vote of Credit during the period. I estimate that if we had not paid for our Canadian supplies and had not received payment for the capital assets in question, our average expenditure during the last quarter would have been at the rate of just under £13,500,000 a day, made up of about £10,750,000 on the Fighting and Supply Services and £2,750,000 on miscellaneous war services.
So far as present trends are concerned, we may no doubt still expect some continuation of the gradual rise that has taken place in expenditure on the three Fighting Services. As regards the Supply Departments, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production stated the other day that during the second quarter of this year production was some 40 per cent. higher than in the first quarter of 1942. He was referring to the output of completed armaments, munitions and so on. The Vote of Credit has to bear the cost of production at all stages before completion, as, for example, when the Departments make progress payments, and the production costs corresponding to the high level of output will already have been reflected in past increases in Vote of Credit expenditure. It seems possible that for the rest of the year there will be a further increase in output, but it is not yet clear how far that will affect the total production costs now being borne by the Vote of Credit. The rate of expenditure on miscellaneous war services in which there have been appreciable fluctuations in the past is particularly difficult to forecast. At this date the Committee will not expect me to attempt more precisely to evaluate for the rest of the year these various branches of Vote of Credit expenditure. As I have previously stated, this year's Vote of Credit represents a substantially larger provision for war expenditure than last year—a matter which could only be one of satisfaction to us, as it is another tangible demonstration of our still rising strength.
This is the 18th Vote of Credit since the beginning of the war. The total of all our war expenditure has now reached the prodigious figure of £14,500,000,000. The additional expenditure which we have yet to face certainly means that we must in no way relax our efforts in the financial


field but rather increase them, not only in avoiding every waste and extravagance and securing every reasonable economy, but in fully maintaining our policy and practice of financing the war on sound and proper lines. In voting this further considerable sum to-day, we can justly claim that it represents once more not only that staying power which has always been our strength but also our confident belief in the attainment, in conjunction with our Allies, of the complete defeat of our enemies and the victory of our cause.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: ; I am certain the Committee will pass unanimously the proposal put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should like to remind the Committee of the immense advance that we have made in the two months since the last Vote of Credit was carried. The war in all its sections has taken on an entirely new complexion since that day, and the position in which the Armies of the United Nations are at the present time is wholly different from what it was only as recently as that time, and still more different from what it was when the Vote of credit before that was passed. None of us is in a position to forejudge what may be the position when the money which we are now voting is nearly used up. I am sure, however, that we all realise that though the present phase of the war may, in the words of President Roosevelt, be said to be the beginning of the end, as against the end of the beginning, that end is not yet. It is true that the light from the sun of victory has begun to show itself over the horizon, but the sun has not yet risen, and we are some way off from the time when day will actually break upon a disordered world.
If this were a more extensive Debate, I would venture to enlarge upon another question which arises from the war expenditure and the consequences of it, but I understand that it is not desired to go into great details to-day. That must not be in any way taken to represent a lack of interest in the Committee or the House in the expenditure of this large amount of money and the consequences which it involves. In fact, what we are doing is in effect, although not in form or substance, to consolidate the decisions which the House is taking every day. This much I would like to say on a

matter about which I asked a Question to-day. I am sure that all Members of the Committee realise the vast importance of the question of the rates of exchange between the different currencies of the nations of the world. It affects what is going on during the war, but it will affect with far-reaching consequences what takes place after the war. I hold, and I believe it will be generally supported, that some of the mistakes we made after the last war in matters of exchange played a large part in bringing about the disastrous events in the inter-war years which led up to the war which we are now waging. Therefore, I am sure that at an appropriate time the House will wish to have more facts with regard to the intentions of the Government as to fixing the rates of exchange. I realise, as I am sure the Committee does, that the rates that have been fixed in the present instance were not a matter for this country alone. They represent the joint decision of the British Treasury and the United States Government. We had to make our decision in the light of the views of the United States. I was very glad to hear the Chancellor use the word "provisional" of the rates fixed, and I would emphasise that this has been made realistic to us by the fact that the rate fixed in North Africa is not identical with the rate selected for Sicily. Therefore, the rate fixed to-day is not finally binding on us in our relations with Italy in the years to come. Nevertheless, the Committee will realise the great difficulty of playing about with exchange rates and changing them. That cannot be done easily; it can only be done with great difficulty, if it can be done at all. Therefore, I wish to point out to the Chancellor the great importance of fixing these rates correctly, so that they do correspond with real parity of purchasing power, and may be suitable in the years to come to regulate the flow of trade between different countries and prevent the grave consequences of maladjusted exchanges, which might work havoc with the future trade, prosperity and peace of the world.

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I understand that it is not the desire of the Committee to have an extended Debate on this Vote of Credit, not because the Committee is not interested in it, but because there is other Business to discuss to-day, but I would like to echo something which was implicit in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member


for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) when he gave evidence that as a result of considering this Vote of Credit his thoughts flew to our post-war position, particularly as it may find expression in the rates of exchange between other countries and our own. I should like to say that my thoughts flew to the post-war position, but on an even wider basis than he indicated, for I am not inclined to pay too much attention to rates of exchange, price levels or rates of interest as ends in themselves, because I think they are expressions in terms of money of activities which really deal with men and materials. I should like my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to know that some of us would welcome an opportunity of a comprehensive Debate upon the post-war position. There may be such an opportunity when we are discussing the Overseas Trade Department, but I am not sure that that opportunity would not be rather limited. We need to consider a large number of factors which enter into our post-war position.

Mr. Benson: Position of what?

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: Our post-war position vis-à-vis other countries; out general position in the world with regard to trade and our general financial relations with other countries.

The Chairman: rose—

Mr. Hely-Hutchinson: I am not proposing to discuss that now. I am only trying to reinforce my right hon. Friend's suggestion, and say that I hope an opportunity will be given to us to have a wider discussion.

Sir Frank Sanderson: My right hon Friend the Chancellor has, quite naturally and rightly, stressed the need of conserving our resources, and I should like to ask him whether he is able to tell the Committee whether it is permissible for foreign nationals to withdraw their credits and send them abroad. I understand that a considerable amount of foreign securities have been or are being sold in London, and the credits from those sales have been exported abroad. If that be true, it seems to me quite wrong that foreign nationals should have any special preference over restrictions which control our own nationals, and I feel that it is a practice which my right hon.

Friend should consider and see that it is stopped forthwith. If it is not true, I hope he will take the first opportunity to make a clear and comprehensive statement on the position.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I have in the past congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the successful way in which he has managed the Budget within the framework of the machinery which the Government have designed for this purpose, but, while I congratulate him, I am at the same time extremely critical of the machinery under which he is operating the Budget. We have a Vote of Credit for £1,000,000,000, and, as far as I am able to judge, before this war is over there will be many other Votes of Credit. The National Debt stands at just over £18,000,000,000, and if we finish this war with a National Debt below £22,000,000,000, we shall be extremely fortunate. But I am concerned with what all these Votes of Credit ultimately mean. We are already paying in taxation no less than £1,700,000,000 in excess of what we were paying in 1938. In 1938 that represented a percentage of 24 per cent., and the figure for 1942 represented a percentage of 38 per cent. The point to which I wish to direct the attention of the Committee is this: In 1938 the national income was £4,900,000,000, and in 1942 it was £7,800,000,000, and taxation called for no less than 38 per cent. of this. One has to bear in mind that the larger national income of £7,800,000,000 in 1942 was made up to a very large extent by several million women being employed in British industry who were not employed in 1938 and the payment of very substantial bonuses and overtime. When the war is over and we get down to what one would call normal conditions, it is obvious that the national income will be substantially less than £7,800,000,000, but while that income will come down substantially the taxation will go up. Therefore, instead of taxation requiring 38 per cent. of the national income, as in 1942, it may well require—

The Chairman: The hon. member is not entitled now to discuss taxation after the the war.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: While I bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, I only wanted to warn the country of the dangers of this


method of financing the war. If we are to continue with this method of financing the war, I have grave fears for the future of British industry and of most people who are engaged in that industry. Is there no alternative to the machinery which the Government have set up for financing the war? I believe there is. In 1939 the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and the Parliamentary and Monetary Committee circulated to Parliament a proposal for financing the war, and in that pamphlet we advocated that the Chancellor should consider what is known as excess Income Tax. Hon. members should not confuse it with Excess Profits Tax. I submit that had the Chancellor—

The Chairman: The hon. member will appreciate that under this Vote we are discussing expenditure. The Vote of Credit is for expenditure arising during the war, and the question of methods of taxation does not arise.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I feel that I have not gone more outside the bounds of your Ruling, Major Milner, than the previous two speakers, who were speaking on postwar rates of exchange. However, I submit to your Ruling, and if I am prevented from dealing with this subject in the way in which I think it should be dealt with, I would remind the Chancellor that if he is coming to this House every two or three months with these Votes of Credit, in that way using the present machinery devised by the Government, we shall end this war in a very serious position, and the sooner we realise it the better. I am surprised, holding these views, that we hear so little from the Ministers responsible of what will be the post-war programme. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has said that the Committee will be unanimous in supporting this Vote of Credit. I do not want to disappoint him, but if there were a Division, seeing that I am not able to debate this matter to the extent that I feel is necessary, I would vote against this Vote of Credit.

Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friends and I take a somewhat different line on these matters from most other hon. Members, but we have indicated that we have no wish unduly to take advantage of the opportunities provided for expressing our views. Since I came into the

House of Commons, more than 20 years ago, this House has been responsible for enthusiastic support of many policies which have involved a good deal of expenditure. I once introduced a Bill in connection with old age pensions, with the aim of increasing the pension to £1 a week. Many people then asked me where the money would be found. Now I come here, and hear credits of £1,000,000,000 voted again and again. It is worth while pointing out that if expenditure had been devoted in the past both in this country and elsewhere to developing the well-being of the people, there would be no need for this tremendous waste of money in war. In the future I hope the truth will be realised that money spent on the well-being of the people is better than expenditure upon war and destruction.

Sir Stanley Reed: To-day, and upon an earlier occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn our attention to the easement in our finances resulting from the generosity of the Canadian Government. Will he now, or on some convenient occasion, tell us how far the easement in our finances has been influenced by the action of the Government of India in their effort to meet the heavy expenditure of the Armed Forces in the Middle and Far East? I am not referring to the repatriation of the sterling debt, which has left only an insignificant sum outstanding, but to those very large sterling balances which are being built up in this country to the credit of the Government of India. I think I am correct in saying that our financial conduct of the war would have been much more difficult without acquiescence in this policy. I hope the Chancellor will be able to inform us how our finances have been eased by this action and what is the amount of the sterling balances on the latest accounting date.

Mr. David Adams: It is very interesting to hear that but for the Canadian Government's generosity towards our war expenditure, this already colossal sum of £1,000,000,000 would probably have been substantially higher. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned that where economies can be effected they ought to be achieved. While we recognise that in the non-combatant section of the Armed Forces, particularly in this country, there must unquestionably be


great redundancy, no one would suggest at this stage there can be any spectacular economies, but I hope that the Chancellor and his advisers will keep a very close watch upon the advice which is given to them in. the various Reports of the Select Committee upon National Expenditure, where suggestions are made for opportunities of substantial economies, immediately there is a diminution in our war production. That we are on the edge of this phase would appear to be evident.
On Tyneside certain classes of labour hitherto accustomed to working on piece, have recently been placed on time work. Under this change, output falls, of course, for lower individual and squad wages, to about one-third or one-half of piecework production. Close Treasury attention to this changing aspect of industry's war tasks, if it develops—and it may do so rapidly with our expanding victories—would inevitably provide wide fields for financial retrenchment.

Sir K. Wood: I am indebted to the Committee for their acceptance of this Vote, and I will take account of and consider everything that has been said. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) was not able to develop his argument on this occasion. If he would like to send me anything in writing about his proposal, I will, as he knows, always look at it and consider it. I should like to reply in a few words on the question of how far foreign nationals can withdraw their assets. If the hon. Member who asked me the question would send me further particulars about it, I will consider what action can be taken. In the meantime, I am informed that foreign-owned sterling balances can normally be withdrawn and spent anywhere within the sterling area on the purchase of goods and services, but sterling securities owned by non-residents cannot be sold nor can money be borrowed in the United Kingdom against them. It would therefore be wrong to say that foreign-held assets can be withdrawn, in the way that the hon. Member indicates.
I agree that it should not be thought, because we are only having a short Debate to-day, that Parliament is not concerned and interested in this matter. It can be said with truth that Parliament has discussed in one form or another methods of finance and related questions more frequently during this war than in any other

period. If one looks back at the number of important Debates we have had since the beginning of the war, it cannot be said that Parliament has in any way neglected its duty. We have given many days and much consideration to questions of finance, and I shall be only too glad to consider, in connection with the Leader of the House, suggestions that have been made for further discussions at a later date.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defrnying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, for general Navy, Army and Air services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the cornmunity; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 1st July].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appeals against rejection of war pension claims made in respect of members of the naval, military or air forces.)

Amendment proposed [1st July]: In page 1, line 8, to leave out from "Minister," to the end of line 15.—[Mr. Hogg.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'to,' in line 14, stand part of the Clause."

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): This Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was under discussion when the Committee Debate was adjourned. In that discussion, I can say without offence or provocation, there were certain cross-currents which were


affecting most hon. Members, and one of them was a feeling of dissatisfaction that we should discuss this Bill till the House had had an opportunity of seeing the proposals for alteration of the White Paper. That has now happened, and I would like to make a few observations on this Amendment and on the effect that it would have; and not only that, but on the question of principle that lies behind it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting down this Amendment and raising this point, because it enables me to explain the broad and relevant facts which affect this point.
The Bill sets out specifically the various matters on which an appeal can be made to the appellate tribunal. That was the procedure followed in the last war and which is followed in the Bill. The Amendment would enable anyone who was dissatisfied with any decision of the Minister to go to the appeal tribunal. Under the Royal Warrant a wide discretionary power is conferred on the Minister for extending benefits in special circumstances beyond the laid-down limits. A very good example is the power to grant pensions in certain circumstances under paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Royal Warrant to what are called "other dependants." Dependants primarily, for the purposes of the pensions Warrant, do not include grandparents, grandchildren, stepmothers or brothers and sisters. Probably everybody would agree that is a quite prima facie rule, but there is power under the paragraph to which I have referred, if pecuniary needs can be shown, to extend what are obviously the normal and proper limits to cases of other dependants.
There are many other cases where benefits can be extended if need can be shown and if financial circumstances justify it. Educational grants can be continued. We believe, and my right hon. Friend has a fairly clear impression, that on the whole the exercise of these various discretions has been wisely and generously carried out and has given satisfaction. If that is right, we think that it is in the interests of the people affected that you should retain the flexibility of an administrative discretionary power rather than do what you would have to do if there was to be an appeal, as I shall show in a moment, namely, reduce these various powers to some sort of code so that you could lay down

principles which could be applied on appeal. I think that is right and that my hon. Friend would probably agree that while the principle can be too absolutely stated that you cannot have an appeal against a discretionary power, broadly speaking that is true and has certainly been laid down by the courts. I think it would be found in most of these cases that if you were to give the right of appeal, you would have to define with more precision than is necessary at present what constitutes need and what constitutes incapacity for support and so on. A more rigid set of rules would have to be introduced which would probably work against the individual. I am not greatly enamoured of the dictum that bad cases make bad law, but undoubtedly there is something in the view that if you are likely to be confronted with special hard circumstances in individual cases, it is better to have an administrative discretion than a set of rules.
Another point I think the Committee will appreciate is that even if one came to the conclusion that it was desirable to have an appeal on any or all of these other matters, the appellate tribunals set up by this Bill would, I think, not be appropriate bodies. I think everybody knows the great demands being made at the moment on the medical profession. Each of the tribunals contains a medical man. It would probably be impossible to justify, even if you could find enough of them, making it necessary for a medical man to decide whether a particular person is dependant on the soldier who has been injured or lost his life.
There was one point on which no appeal could be brought under the Bill as introduced. It was referred to by my hon. Friend and by others, both in the Second Reading Debate and in the discussion the other day. That was the question whether there should not be introduced into the Bill the right of appeal against what is called an interim decision by the Minister on the degree of disablement, carrying with it, of course, a decision whether the pension is to be 40 per cent., 60 per cent. or 80 per cent., etc., of the full amount that can be allowed. No provision made for that in the last war nor in the Bill as introduced.
We have down later on the Order Paper Amendments which in fact introduce, subject to certain conditions, this


right of appeal. It would probably be out of Order to go into those matters in detail, but I think, subject to your Ruling, Major Milner, it would be desirable if I said a word or two about them on this Amendment, because, after all, it was one of the main points put forward in favour of the principle lying behind this Amendment. I will try to steer a course of not referring in detail to them, and I am sure that if we get a little wide we will not refer on a later occasion to what we have been able to discuss now.
I would first of all like to tell the Committee that under the present procedure, apart from any right of appeal, these cases are under constant review. I think it is right that that should be made clear on behalf of the Ministry of Pensions. It is not the case that when a man comes out the Minister says "40 per cent." or whatever it is and will think no more about the case until the final assessment is made. The cases are under constant and regular review at intervals of six to 12 months, even though the man himself makes no application. If a man himself writes in and complains that his circumstances have changed, or got worse, or that he is not satisfied with what has been done, he is at once re-examined by another medical board, who report to my right hon. Friend. It is right that that should be made clear, that these cases are under constant administrative review. [Interruption]—as my hon. Friend says, up and down. We hope in many cases down, that the man gets better.
On the other hand, we did feel that there was great force in the argument which was put. Here in the Bill, it was said, you agree that when a final assessment is made which will settle on 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. or whatever it is, the man can appeal, whereas he cannot in the case of an interim assessment which settles that percentage for a period which may be long, because everybody agrees that final assessments are not wanted too soon, even if the administrative machinery could cope with them. There may be a man whose condition has become fairly stable at, say, 40 per cent, or 60 per cent. If that was the case when a final assessment was made, he could appeal, whereas for a considerable period, in the case of the interim period he cannot. We think there is considerable force in that and have put down

later Amendments that there should be provision for such an appeal.
I should explain that we are asking for power to suspend the right of these appeals. We first of all suggest that the right of appeal should not exist until two years after the original assessment. That I commend to the Committee as a good idea, because it is in the early months that the condition is mostly variable, and the Minister of Pensions will be keeping the case under constant review. An appeal is not needed when a man is to be looked at again in three months or six months. We also seek to be empowered to suspend bringing into force the right of appeal simply because it is impracticable for administrative reasons to deal with the accumulations of entitlement appeals and interim assessment appeals simultaneously. I am sure that the Committee will agree that entitlement claims should come first—they are the really important matter—and that they realise that while it is right and proper that there should be the right of interim assessment appeal, they would criticise us very much if those appeals came in front of entitlement appeals. My right hon. Friend, having conceded the principle, will bring it into operation as soon as possible, and he can be stimulated on the matter by Questions in the House.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Would the Attorney-General be good enough to point out where that point appears in the Government Amendment—where the suspension comes?

The Attorney-General: In the fourth Amendment on page 388. What is done is to use words which show that the present suspensory power in respect of assessment appeals also apply to this. That is how it is done. I hope I have covered the points, and I hope that my hon. Friend and those with him will not press this Amendment. We have considered this point, we have conceded in principle the major point made, and we really feel that it would be better to leave discretionary cases where they are.

Mr. Hogg: I do not want anything I say to appear to cast any doubt whatever on the gratitude which I am sure the Committee will feel to the Government and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for the great


advance they have made from their attitude on the previous occasion. But there are one or two matters to which I feel the Committee will want attention drawn as showing that the Government even yet have not gone quite far enough. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will not resent the careful scrutiny we give to this matter. Although we are all of us anxious that the Bill should be carried through to its conclusion in the shortest possible time, we do, I think, feel that this is the moment to get things right, that any later moment would be one at which the administrative difficulties would be very much greater than now. Therefore, even at the expense of a little time, it is worth while looking at these provisions carefully and seeing whether or not they are yet quite right, We originally put forward on principle these Amendments which we are discussing, and the principle we had in mind was that where the right is given to a subject the appropriate tribunal ultimately to decide that right is not executive but judicial, in this case the appellant tribunal set up by the Measure, and as a general principle we are not prepared to depart from that statement.
We do not, it is quite true, fully appreciate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has just drawn our attention to, namely, that there are a number of discretionary powers in the Minister with which perhaps it would be unwise to interfere by way of appeal. That may be so, but none the less we do not feel that the Attorney-General has fully appreciated the strength of the case against it. It would have been perfectly easy, had he so desired it, to put in a proviso to this Clause excluding matters in which there was discretion. Instead of that, the Clause proceeds with a very narrow statement as to the grounds on which it is possible to appeal. One of those grounds, but only one, refers to the degree of assessment, the degree of disablement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that the new Amendment which stands in his name will to some extent meet the criticism which arose on that point. I should prefer with your permission, Mr. Williams, to reserve my criticism of that new Clause until such time as it is moved.

I quite agree that to some extent our criticism has been met by the proposed new Clause. On the other hand, it has not been quite met. Let me put to the learned Attorney-General this question. Suppose you get a lady claiming as the widow of a disabled man. All of us who have practised in the courts know that once in every so many marriages a real doubt occurs as to the validity of the marriage. Sometimes these doubts are very difficult to resolve, and they cause a great deal of heartburning, and sometimes a great expenditure of judicial time.
This is not a question of discretion, but a question of entitlement. There is no right of appeal for such a person. Suppose there came a question as to whether a son was the legitimate son of a man who was claiming a pension. There is no right of appeal on such a point, although the Minister of Pensions on the Second Reading clearly said that where there was a question of entitlement there ought to be a right of appeal. We cannot regard this situation as wholly satisfactory. We think that there should be on all matters of right, as distinct from matters of discretion, an appeal to a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal. There is nothing in what the Attorney-General has said to indicate that that right is being given. The Attorney-General has indicated that in his view the appeals tribunals set up by this Act would not be suitable for questions of that kind. Let it be so. But the right answer is not that you should therefore take away the right of appeal altogether, but that you should allow such questions to be referred to an appropriate tribunal. Unless some such concession were made on a subsequent stage I should feel that the concession of the Government was by no means adequate. There is another matter, of a more technical kind, to which we referred on a former occasion. It was first raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller), who pointed out that as the Bill is drafted the Government could cut and come again, but that the appellant could not do so, reading Clause I with the later Clause respecting finality of appeals.

The Attorney-General: We are dealing with that by a later Amendment, which will make it clear that on matters in respect of which there is a right of appeal the Minister cannot cut and come again.

Captain Cobb: Surely that Amendment refers only to mariners and pilots, not to men in the Fighting Services?

The Attorney-General: I will explain that when we come to it.

Mr. Hogg: In the circumstances, perhaps we had better reserve that point, and find out whether it is adequately covered when the Amendment comes before the Committee. I want to keep as general as possible. I am not yet persuaded that the right of appeal is wide enough. I do not want to appear unreasonable. I shall be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment if any reasonable concession is made by the Government, or if it is the sense of the Committee that I should do so; but at present I do not think the Government's case has been made out, and I should like further concessions to be made.

Major Manningham-Buller: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has said. I am not in favour of limiting the Minister's discretion where discretion should properly be exercised, but, as the hon. Member has said, there are many questions here which are questions solely and simply of law. I support his appeal to the Government to consider whether those questions of law could not be brought before some form of tribunal competent to deal with them. I am grateful to the Government for dealing with the question of appeals from interim assessments. But I am not satisfied that they have given as much as I had hoped they would. I do not like the position that a man's right of appeal against an interim assessment should riot arise until the Minister chooses to bring that particular section of the Act into force. It seems to me that you are giving a right the exercise of which will depend upon the manner in which the Minister exercises his discretion. I, too, would like to reserve such observations as I have to make upon that proposal until the Amendment comes to be discussed. I am glad that the Government have seen fit to recognise the right—although I think it is too qualified—to appeal against interim assessments, which may exist for a very long time indeed.

The Attorney-General: I put fairly fully before the Committee the reasons which have led us to think that it would be a mistake to accept the principle of this

Amendment. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it could not be accepted as it stands, because it would wreck the Bill. With regard to legitimacy, I think that there is already power for a child to get a declaration of legitimacy from the court; so that is already provided for. With regard to the widow, there are certain classes of proceedings where that matter may arise, but I will assume for the moment that there is no accessible proceeding for somebody to get a declaration merely to prove that she is legally married. I will not go into that. You might have some special provision for going to a court. It would be an expensive matter if it were a doubtful case. My right hon. Friend cannot remember a case of that sort arising, but I cannot conceive that if such a case arose the Ministry would not give the man the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, it has to give him the benefit of all doubts. No Minister is going to withhold a pension because there may be some legal doubt as to whether a marriage comes within the jurisdiction. If you put in a special provision, which rather invites the Ministry to say that if there is a doubt they must take a summons before the court, it will not bring any practical advantage, and might do some harm, by suggesting that the Minister should take the matter to court, instead of acting generously, without scrutinising doubts which might occur to a legal mind. I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. We have considered it, with every desire to meet the point to the extent which we thought right, but at the same time a desire to see that what we thought was valuable to the man, the discretionary element, remained where it was.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: In the Debate last week I asked that the qualifying words in "directly attributable" and "aggravated … to a material extent" should be omitted from the Bill and the Warrant. Between then and now an Amendment has been put down by the Minister to leave them out of the Bill. I ask for an assurance that the new words to be substituted will be matched by corresponding words in the Royal Warrant.

The Attorney-General: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Bellenger: When we originally debated this Amendment, I was attracted by its terms. Even now, I and


my hon. Friends want to give appellants the widest possible right of appeal, but there is no doubt that the greater number of appeals will be on the two grounds mentioned in the Clause. There may be other cases, although the Minister of Pensions says that he has not known of other cases which arise, and I do not think we should be doing right if we rejected those cases. It seems that we are working in the air, if I may use the expression, because there is no doubt that on the substantial cases the Government have attempted to meet our point of view. Having an Amendment down on the question of appeal in regard to the degree of disability, I feel that the Government have tried to meet us, although whether they have gone the whole distance that we want them to go remains to be seen when we discuss that Amendment. Therefore, I think that as in the Warrant itself there is provision for pensions to what are coloquially termed unmarried wives, I think we would not be wise in pressing this Amendment, and that we should await the Debates on the later Amendments. Then, if we think that the Government have not met us as completely as they ought, we should ask them on subsequent stages to go further.

Mr. Stephen: I think the Bill should be as wide as possible. I was not greatly impressed by what the Attorney-General said, as to whether those words would create a difficulty in connection with the discretionary rights of the Minister. I think that appeals in those cases would be very few. I agree, however, that an attempt is being made by the Government to meet us. I do not wish to be unreasonable. I probably would not have spoken now had not the Attorney-General, after consultation with the Minister, said that he did not know of a case where a widow had been refused a pension because the validity of the marriage had been called into question. I do not know a case in connection with the Ministry of Pensions, but I remember the Scottish Department of Health taking exception on those grounds and the case having to go to the High Court for decision. What one Department does, another Department might do. I agree with other hon. Members that an attempt is being made by the Government to meet us on this matter,

but I still think that the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hogg: I feel that the sense of the Committee is in favour of my asking leave to withdraw the Amendment; therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "directly."
This is the first of a series of Amendments that follow in this Bill to implement the new conditions that were announced in the alterations and amendments which will be made in the Royal Warrant as outlined in the White Paper, and I hope hon. Members will accept them and also accept my assurance that this will bring the Bill into line with the new conditions in the Royal Warrant.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 1 line 10, leave out from "to," to "and," in line 11, and insert "war service."

In line 13 leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 14, and insert:
existed before or arose during war service and has been.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 1, line 16, after "decision," to insert:
specifying that it is made on that ground.
In the discussion the other day it was said that a man got a communication from the Ministry which did not make it clear upon the face of it on which ground the pension was rejected. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) which suggests that we should insert:
together with a short statement of his reasons therefor.
There are two points there. There is the point which we are meeting in which in this and in the other Clauses the Minister will make the matter quite clear. In Clause 1 he has to be satisfied that it is neither "attributable" nor "aggravated." That is simple, but in other Clauses it might be one reason or it might be another. He has to state his case.
My hon. Friend suggested something a little more than that—a short statement


of the reasons. We feel a difficulty about that. In these cases, which very often depend on medical considerations, once you started giving a sort of resumé that the Chairman would give if he gave, as a judge does in an ordinary case, a sort of summing up, you would want, first of all, to have a rather skilled man to do it, and it is also not an easy thing to do. Therefore, we feel that as far as the Statute is concerned we must stick to simply indicating the reason. The Committee should bear this in mind—and it is very important—that though a man will only get, at this stage, a statement of the reason, if he is dissatisfied he can put in a notice of appeal. I do not want to advise everybody to do that, but if he puts in a notice of appeal he will then, under the rules, get a full statement of his case. If a man is dissatisfied he could get, by putting in a notice of appeal, not merely a short statement of reasons, but a full statement of his case. When he looks at that he may say, "I have never realised that before, and I will not go on with my appeal." At any rate he can, by the automatic process of putting in a notice of appeal, get a full statement, and I think that that is really satisfactory. We might easily get into difficulties if we tried to set people compiling documents which purported to be a short statement of reasons. I think that the best way is that the man should be told the reason, and, if he is not satisfied, he can get a full authoritative statement of the facts of his case.

Mr. Hogg: I am not sure whether the learned Attorney-General has gone far enough here, although what he has said amounts to an advance. What we had in mind in putting down our Amendment was that the man should be in a position to know in informal language the real nature of the case he had to meet. We cannot believe that it is as difficult to prepare such a statement as the Attorney-General seems to think. We did not have in mind a formal plea but the sort of document that a police inspector has to write out about 50 times a day, in which the short particulars of the case is put against the man charged with a criminal offence. If a police inspector can do it as a mere matter of routine, I would have thought that a highly paid and highly trained member of the staff of the Ministry of Pensions would be in a position to

do exactly the same thing. I am not altogether satisfied with the rider which the Attorney-General has made to the effect that, if a man puts in a notice of appeal, he can get something more. What the man wants to know is whether to put in an appeal or not. It may be that once he sees the Minister's reasons he finds that they are unanswerable, but it is a direct invitation for people to put in frivolous notices of appeal. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision—I do not ask for what we ask in our Amendment—and give at least as much as an accused person is entitled to know in the ordinary course of events in police court proceedings.

Mr. Stephen: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I have had a lot of pension cases to deal with and the receipt of a form with words scored out there and something inserted elsewhere makes it difficult for the ordinary person to understand. If the person concerned was given a letter in which the case was dealt with briefly by the Ministry possibly there would not be so much need for a statement. These printed forms which the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions send out are not satisfactory documents and I hope that the Attorney-General and the Minister of Pensions will consider doing something more than they are doing here. I gather that claimants will still receive a printed form saying "not attributable" or "not aggravated," and the person who gets it simply does not understand it. Something much more human and kindly than those stereotyped forms is necessary and I hope that the Minister will make some real concession in this matter.

Mr. Buchanan: I also ask the Attorney-General to reconsider this matter. We have often had these cases in Scotland, and the Ministry of Labour has had to modify these forms. The Ministry used to issue documents marked "misconduct" which might mean drunkenness, debauchery, immorality or anything, and it has now modified it considerably and it is "misconduct" in the industrial sense. A man who had been merely late in the morning would find that that had been entered as "misconduct" which made him think that all sorts of unfavourable things were


involved. The Ministry of Labour now explains the reasons. A man now receives a form with the reasons set out before he goes to any appeal court, for example, that he was frequently late for work, and the reasons are set out briefly. The Attorney-General ought to look into this matter again. It would be valuable for a man to have a short summary of the background of the Minister's mind with regard to the case. When we used to go almost daily with soldiers to the pensions appeal Board we were given long typewritten documents setting out all the hospitals in which the man had been a patient, the length of time and all about it. What the man really wanted was not those facts but the background of the Ministry and the accumulative effect of all these things. There might be a little difficulty in doing this, but I do not think it is insurmountable. To give a short summary of reason would really be an advantage. The Minister might say there was excessive drunkenness or alcoholic poisoning and that would be the background of the case. If the man knows the background he knows what he has to meet. I think that if the Attorney-General and the Minister of Pensions would give their minds to this small point they could go some way towards meeting the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).

Captain Cobb: This is a point which I raised in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I think that the Amendment which is down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) covers this point better than the Amendment of the Minister. In the first place, any man who makes an appeal against the Minister's decision has at least the right to know, generally speaking, the grounds on which the Minister has arrived at that decision. From the point of view of the Ministry I am quite sure that most men, if they were given a reasonable explanation as to why the Minister was unable to accept their claim, would see the Minister's point of view and, not bother about a further appeal. But if I were a claimant and was informed by the Minister that my claim had been turned down, although I could be given the reasons if I decided to put my case before a tribunal, I should always have another cut at it.

Mr. John Dugdale: I would like to support the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) largely on the grounds suggested by the last speaker. One of the things we want to do is to avoid bad feeling as much as we possibly can. If a man does not know on what ground his appeal has been turned down and gets merely a curt notice, he will have a grudge against the Ministry. That, I think, would be unfortunate for the Ministry, and in order to simplify things from the point of view of the Ministry's officials, apart from the effect on the men themselves, his Amendment should be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I want to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) about this matter and particularly what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). It is a bad psychological approach to send people forms without giving them any explanation of their case. What is really wanted is to convey to the applicant the information that his case has had individual attention. If the Ministry of Pensions has a reason for turning down a pension claim, it should not be very difficult to say so, and presumably when they reject an application there must be a reason for it. The reason can be stated in a few words if the pension is refused. That would give the applicant the feeling that he is being fairly dealt with. He should not receive a form saying, "Your claim has been rejected because your injury was not attributable to war service," but he should receive an explanation as to why the injury has not been considered to be attributable to war service. I feel that the procedure suggested by the Attorney-General will only lead to an increase in the number of appeals, because the only machinery by which a person can receive a statement of reason is, apparently, first by lodging an appeal. Why should a course of that kind be taken when the matter can be so simply dealt with in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford? The Government's Amendment to this Clause is a rather niggardly way of dealing with something that could be dealt with by a generous gesture.

Mr. Turton: I do not want to repeat the arguments used on


this Amendment, but I would like to say that the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) is far more desirable than that in the name of the Minister of Pensions. In my view the Amendment which the Minister is suggesting is not only valueless but really dangerous. There are only two grounds, A or B, and if I were a claimant and received a notice stating that it was under A, I would try to appeal against the Minister's decision, in order to find out what was behind his attitude. It is far better that the Minister should say that he was sorry, that he had gone into the case but could not give a pension. I should feel far less hostile if I received such an explanation than if I received a notice saying that the pension was being refused because the injury was not attributable to war service.

Mr. Bellenger: I, too, would like to urge the Government to reconsider this matter. We have heard expressions of opinion from all sides of the Committee, and I do not want to add to what has been said except to explain what happens at the present moment. A man is issued with a pink form stating that the Ministry rejects his claim for a pension, and there is generally inserted, in handwriting, the nature of his disease or disability. If all that the Government intend to do is to add, "Your claim has been rejected under A or B because of a certain disease," they will only increase the number of claims for appeals to be heard, so that men can get the real reasons set out extensively as to why the Ministry have rejected their claims. The Minister has told us that his staff will be heavily worked as soon as the tribunals are set up. The tribunals will have to prepare their side of the case, and it may save them a lot of work if, at the outset, a little more than the bare bones of the cause of rejection is given, so that a man could talk the case over with his adviser and see whether there is a prima facie case for appeal.

Sir W. Womersley: I must make an appeal to the Committee not to press for anything more than I have put down in my Amendment. There are very definite reasons why it would be very difficult to carry out the matter, from an administrative point of view. We are heavily pressed at the moment, and, in addition to preparing statements of cases for

appeal tribunals, we have all these new conditions that are being brought in under the White Paper to put into operation. There will be hundreds of thousands of cases and new books to be issued, and it is almost impossible to carry it any further at the moment. If a statement is to be made, I do not think it sufficient that it should be short. No one would be satisfied unless there was a complete statement. Such a procedure would require a highly trained staff. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that when an appeal is made a complete statement is issued to the claimant, and he gets full knowledge of everything we have in the way of evidence. We can manage that. If my Amendment is accepted I will go into the matter carefully with the heads of my staff, whom I am meeting shortly, to see whether it is possible to devise some way administratively to meet the general wishes which have been expressed.

Major Manningham-Buller: It seems to me that the proposed Government Amendment is a little ambiguous. It says:
specifying that it is made on that ground.
The words "on that ground" appear to refer to two quite different grounds. First, the injury is not attributable to war service and, second, that it does not fulfil certain conditions.

The Attorney-General: Both have to be satisfied.

Major Manningham-Buller: When one looks at Clause 1, Sub-section (2) it appears that those are two quite distinct grounds. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it should not be stated quite clearly on which ground a claim is being rejected.

Mr. Hogg: I feel that the Committee has been put into a very difficult position by the Government. The views expressed are absolutely unanimous; they are contrary to the Government's view. But the Government have stood firm, the Committee is not very well filled and the result of the Government standing firm would be absolutely inevitable. May I put it like this? The Government, by taking a stand against the unanimous wishes of the Committee, are in the position of a person drawing on his bank balance. They drew on it once too often the last time. This time they still have plenty of money in the bank as a result of their White Paper, but you can go on drawing


on the balance, and what has been done once may be done again. If, therefore, we do not press this matter to a Division on this occasion it does not mean that the Government's balance is not a bit lower than it was when they started.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 4, leave out "directly."

In line 4, leave out from "to," to the second "the," in line 5, and insert "war service."

In line 6, after "decision," insert "specifying that the injury is so accepted."

In line 8, leave out "directly."

Mr. Bellenger: I take it, Mr. Williams, that you are not calling my Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where, for the purposes of any such claim as aforesaid, the disablement on which the claim is based is accepted by the Minister as fulfilling the conditions specified in the last foregoing Sub-section, the Minister shall notify the claimant of his decision as to the degree or nature of the disablement, and thereupon an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal on the issue as to the degree or nature of the disablement,
in view of the subsequent Amendment in the name of the Minister?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): That is so. The Minister's Amendment is to Clause 5, I believe.

Further Amendments made:

In page 2, line 14, leave out "materially."

In line 15, leave out from "injury," to the end of line 16, and insert:
which was attributable to war service.

In line 17, leave out from "to" to the end of line 21, and insert:
or hastened by the aggravation by war service of an injury which existed before or arose during war service.

In line 22, after "decision," insert:
specifying that it is made on that ground.

In line 34, leave out "naval, military or air force," and insert "war."

In line 36, leave out "material."

In line 42, leave out "material."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Appeals against rejection of war pension claims made in respect of mariners, pilots, etc.)

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 21, at the end, add new Sub-section:
(2) Where the Minister rejects any such claim as aforesaid on one of the grounds specified in the last foregoing Sub-section and an appeal is brought from his decision,—

(a) the Minister may notify the appellant before the hearing of the appeal that he also rejects the said claim on the other ground so specified, and thereupon the Tribunal shall treat the appeal as an appeal on the issue whether the claim was rightly rejected on both the said grounds;
(b) unless the Minister notifies the appellant as aforesaid, he shall not be entitled, if the appeal is allowed, subsequently to reject the said claim on the said other ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman has not deleted the word "directly" in paragraph (a), where it says: "directly attributable to a war injury"? The word was deleted in respect of the Armed Forces, but here, in relation to the Mercantile Marine, it is not deleted. Paragraph (b) (i) refers to service as a mariner in a British ship. I presume that follows the words of the Act, but a British seaman may be serving in a ship belonging to an Allied country chartered by a British owner. If a British sailor is serving in a ship not under the British flag, is he entitled to a pension under the Act of 1942?

Captain Cobb: I understood my right hon. and learned Friend was going to assure me and others ignorant of the law that the Amendment we have just agreed to does not apply only, as it appears to a layman, in respect of mariners but to every individual who is covered by the Bill.

The Attorney-General: Clause 1 deals only with the question whether injury is attributable to war service. Clause 2 deals with two alternative grounds of rejection. A claim may be rejected on the ground that it is not attributable to war injury or on the ground that the person was not at the time employed in a way which brought him within the scheme. Unless the words were inserted the Minister could first of all reject the


claim on the ground that it was not a war injury, and, if the tribunal said it was, he could say that the claimant was not on board a British ship. Our Amendment avoids that. When we come to consider Clause 4, which deals with possible rejection on the ground of misconduct, which may apply all over the field, we are putting in words to make it clear that the Minister must consider that before an appeal is brought. He has to survey the whole possible field of grounds of objection. We want to prevent it going to appeal, coming back, and the Minister raising a new point. The word "directly" is there, because it is in the Act. This is not a Bill to amend the Act but to see that appeals can be brought within the Act. The position is not quite the same as the point we were dealing with under the Royal Warrant. There the question was whether the injury was attributable to war service. I can quite see the argument that "directly" is a narrowing word and that it is better to have it out, but it is different when you are talking about disablement being attributable to war injury. It does not have quite the same meaning as it would have in the case of war service. I might have my arm blown off, and as a result, perhaps a year later, I might be trying to strike a match with my left hand and get a burn. I did that once when I had injured my right arm. That would possibly be indirectly attributable to a war injury.

Mr. Bellenger: Would a member of the Armed Forces get a pension in those circumstances?

The Attorney-General: Disability resulting from disease is a different type of conception from the question whether it is attributable to war injury. We should be out of Order if we argued whether "directly" should or should not be in the Act. It is there and, as this is dealing with an appeal brought under the Act, we have to follow the language of the Act. I was asked a question with regard to British subjects. I am told that a British subject sailing in a foreign ship is covered by the Act of 1942.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered my second question quite satisfactorily, but I am not satisfied on the first point. Apparently, because the Clause deals

with an Act of Parliament which wants amending to get rid of the word "directly," the Government say, "We must leave it as it is." In the case of the Armed Forces they can do it by altering the pension Warrant, and therefore they have accepted the point of view which has been put up forcibly on previous occasions that we should have a much more elastic definition of the grounds upon which a man can claim a pension. I do not know how the Government can meet the point, though I think they ought to meet it, that a disability from which a merchant seaman might suffer might very well be not directly due to a bomb that hit him on the head but to the fact that a bomb caused his ship to sink and that he was then on a raft in the Pacific Ocean for two or three months and thereby got his disability.

Sir W. Womersley: In dealing with this Clause, it must be understood that it is not on all fours with a service case, because a seaman is not an employee of the Government. What the Government provided was compensation against war injuries, or disablement as the result of war service. A direct hit by a bomb is enemy action. That comes in without question; but there were other things pointed out to us last year by representatives of the seamen which we embodied in the Bill which brought in all kinds of things which might happen by way of disablement in the way of disease because of the abnormal conditions of war service. We had to keep the word "directly" in, because, if a man is not entitled to compensation under the Government scheme, he is entitled, if he can prove his case in the ordinary way, to workmen's compensation. There are two different kinds of compensation open to him. If we removed the word "directly," it would not be benefiting the man, but it might make it difficult for us to settle our position about whose liability it is. If a ship meets with an ordinary maritime disaster in war-time without any intervention from the enemy or any abnormal conditions relating to the war, it is a workman's compensation case and it has to be dealt with in that way. The Government have taken on this great liability of dealing with what are definitely war injuries, or war service injuries, as we call them, due to disease and abnormal conditions. That Bill was


thoroughly debated in the House and was carefully considered before we brought it in. We consulted all those who were responsible on behalf of the men, and it was found necessary to keep that word in. In any case we cannot depart from the Act, and if the hon. Member wants it altered, it must be by an Amendment to the Act itself.

Mr. Bellenger: The Minister has enlightened the Committee as to what actually happened, but I will not say that I am satisfied. It looks now as if the word "directly" is in the original Act and in this Bill in order to protect the Government's interest as against the possibility of claims against the employers of the men on workmen's liability grounds. All I am after is to see that the man who gets his injury, not directly attributable, but indirectly attributable to war service, gets compensation.

Sir W. Womersley: That is all provided in the Bill.

Major Manningham-Buller: I would like to express my appreciation of the fact that the Government have met the point I raised in the Debate on Second Reading that under the Bill as originally drafted the Government could cut and come again. I think that the attitude of the Minister in relation to this point should perhaps be taken as amounting to a credit entry in the imaginary balance-sheet of this Bill.

Major Petherick: I am not quite happy with regard to the word "directly," and the point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). I listened to the Minister's reply with interest, but I am not convinced that nothing can be done. We are now amending, to a considerable extent, the whole scheme and conditions under which pensions are granted, and I do not think enough specific cases have been mentioned to illustrate the different points. I can see that certain cases may be covered, but take the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw of a man who is torpedoed in the Pacific. A man who is hit by a bomb or sunk as the result of a bomb and injured would be covered, but suppose the man who was torpedoed got off his ship on to a raft and was exposed for a considerable number of

days or weeks and then sometime afterwards contracted chronic bronchitis. In a case like that it would be rather difficult to give a decision if the words remain as they are now. Any doubts surely would be removed by simply inserting an extra Clause in this Bill amending the two Acts which are mentioned at the beginning of this Clause.

Mr. Hogg: There is a small cognate point on which some of us would be glad of advice. By Section 5 of the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act, 1942, it is provided that the expression "physical injury" in the principal Act, in that Act and in the Personal Injuries Act, includes certain diseases and any other organic disease which is an aggravation thereof. As this Clause is drafted the word "attributable" is used without the expression "aggravation" attached. At the bottom of 385 of the Order Paper I have an Amendment which I put down for the purpose of asking that point to be dealt with. It was not called and I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether an aggravation of an organic disease would not be covered by this Clause, and if not, why not? There are some people who are a little troubled about it.

The Attorney-General: It is covered for the reasons that under Section 5 of the 1942 Act aggravation is brought in under the definition of "war risk injuries."

Commander King-Hall: If a ship is cast away owing to lack of light on the coast, is it an ordinary maritime risk, and does it come under "directly"?

Sir W. Womersley: It comes under "directly" if the ship was cast away owing to abnormal war conditions.

Mr. John Dugdale: The Minister has assured us that by one system or another a seaman will get compensation. What I am anxious to know is whether the rate will be the same whether the compensation comes from a Minister or from the private company concerned. I do not want us to get in the position of saying that he will get his compensation anyway, only to find that he will not get as much from the private company as he would have got if the Minister took the responsibility.

Sir W. Womersley: We discussed this point with the representatives of the men,


and they insisted that they should get no less from us than they would get under workmen's compensation. I do not think the hon. Member need worry about these points. It is not for us to decide what the workmen's compensation rates are today. I have negotiated all the arrangements for the Mercantile Marine Act with the responsible representatives of the men, and I do not see how it applies to this at all.

Mr. Dugdale: I think it matters very much. While we cannot alter workmen's compensation rates, if we find that they are lower than the rates which the Minister would have paid if he had been responsible, many of us would wish the' Minister to take over the responsibility.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Appeals against rejection of war tension claims made in respect of civil defence volunteers and other civilians.)

Amendment made:

In page 3, line 29, after "decision," insert:
specifying that it is made on that ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: I want to raise on this Clause a similar point to that which was raised on the last. Does the word "direct" in line 27 appear for the same reasons that have just been given on Clause 2? This Clause deals with the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act and I shall be glad to know why the word "direct" has not been deleted.

Sir W. Womersley: The reasons are exactly those which I stated with regard to the other matter.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Is my right hon. Friend sure that the fact that he has included this word will not wipe out quite a number of legitimate cases?

Sir W. Womersley: I can assure the hon. Member that it will not. We deal with these cases in a most sympathetic way once they are proved to be our liability.

Mr. Hall: Take the example of the late Private Clayton, who was found to be suffering from tuberculosis. It is possible that he might have given that disease to some of the other men with whom he was sleeping in the detention camp. It is also likely that people on Civil Defence might in the same way contract a disease like tuberculosis. It could not be argued that they contracted the disease directly as the result of war service, but they could claim that it was indirectly contracted.

Sir W. Womersley: If there was evidence to show that a Civil Defence worker had contracted tuberculosis in a place where he had to carry out his duties through having to sleep on duty or anything of that sort, it would certainly be a case in which we should award compensation.

Earl Winterton: May I ask a question about interpretation? Why is the phrase "Civil Defence volunteer" used? In the Civil Defence Service there are volunteers and those who are directed. Is there any significance in the term?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no doubt assured himself that this applies equally to those who are directed?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir.

Earl Winterton: Then why is the word "volunteer" used?

The Attorney-General: It was the word originally used when everybody was a volunteer. When direction became possible a new title was not given to the directed people, and they were still called Civil Defence volunteers.

Mr. Tinker: If the word "volunteer" were knocked out all would be covered, because volunteers would be included with those directed.

Major Petherick: The word "volunteer" was in the previous instruments concerning Civil Defence. If one looks in a dictionary, I am not sure that it will not be found that the word means a person who gives his services voluntarily. I do not know whether the word in previous instruments has been redesigned, and I am not convinced that it is legally in Order to use the word in this Bill to refer to people who are not volunteers.

Earl Winterton: Originally the term "Civil Defence volunteer" was quite rightly used, but now it is out of date. The proper term should be "Civil Defence service."

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: Would it not be simplified if instead of "volunteer" the word "worker" was used? That would include both the pressed man and the volunteer.

The Attorney-General: I agree that the used of the word has become a little illogical, but it is convenient for the purposes of the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act. A Civil Defence volunteer is defined as anybody who is a member of the organisation, and that covers people directed as well as people not directed. The phrase should, therefore, remain, although it is a little illogical.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Appeals in cases where award is withheld or reduced on ground of serious negligence or misconduct.)

Amendment made: In page 4, line 9, after "decision," insert:
specifying that it is made on that ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out from "Minister," to "allowed," in line 15, and to insert:
has notified the appellant before the appeal is lodged that even if an appeal is lodged and.
The idea of myself and my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment is that we thought it was unfair that only at the last moment should an appellant have placed before him a notice from the Minister alleging misconduct, without adequate opportunity to prepare an answer to it. We think this Amendment is probably dealt with by one which follows in the name of the Minister, and if we have that assurance from the Government we do not intend to press it.

The Attorney-General: There are two points here, and perhaps I should deal with my hon. Friend's Amendment and the two Government Amendments which follow, because they are closely related. I think the point of major importance is found in the part of the Amendment which

is intended to prevent the Minister, as it is said, "coming and coming again." The appeal tribunal may decide that a case is attributable, but the Minister may think otherwise and say, "After all, I think there was misconduct and you must forfeit your rights." Under the Bill as drafted the Minister had the power, if a man gave notice of appeal on the grounds of attributability, to say, "I think this is a case in which there has been misconduct." The first thing we have done by our Amendment is to make it mandatory on the Minister, before the appeal is heard, to take the point of misconduct if he thinks it proper to take it, and if he does not take it then he cannot take it afterwards.
My hon. Friend's Amendment raises a slightly different point, on which I hope the Committee will think we have decided rightly. The point is that when the Minister looks at the case in the first instance he may say, "This is not attributable" and may then say "And if I am wrong about that, there was possibly misconduct." We suggest that at that stage the Minister should merely indicate that he regards it as a non-attributable case. If it is perfectly obvious that it is a non-attributable case it is quite unnecessary to rub into the man a reminder of misconduct which he will have heard about in the past and will want to forget. We therefore think it would be a pity to raise that point of misconduct, which may never come into the picture, because the man may realise that he has no hope of challenging the decision of non-attributability and will not bring the matter forward. It is felt that there will not be many cases in which this question will arise. But if the Minister is raising misconduct as an alternative, he should tell the man, so that the appeal tribunal can dispose of it. If they are against the Minister on both points that is an end of the matter; the man gets his pension and that is the end of the case. We hope the Committee will feel that is a satisfactory way of dealing with this problem, which we considered in the light of what my hon. Friend and others have said on previous occasions, and we entirely accept the principle that all points should be opened up by the Minister.

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give this assurance in the event of our not pressing the point—first, that where misconduct is going to be alleged the man should


be given sufficient time before the hearing to prepare his case, and, secondly, that he should be given sufficient particulars about the alleged misconduct to know what the charge is that he has to answer?

The Attorney-General: That must be a matter for the Rules, but of course a man must have time and must be given proper notice.

Mr. Hogg: In those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 4, line 17, leave out "may," and insert "shall."

In line 18, at the end, add:
and unless the Minister notifies the appellant as aforesaid, he shall not be entitled, if the appeal is allowed, to withhold or reduce the award on the said ground."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Haden Guest: Where there is a question of misconduct or negligence I should like to know the position of the widow in case of the man's death. It would appear that the widow would have no right to pension, but that seems to be very unjust in certain cases, I do not say in all cases. Supposing that the negligence or misconduct arises from disobedience in walking over a mined area, resulting in the man being blown up. Is his widow to be deprived of any possibility of getting a pension? In one case which came to my notice a man broke out of detention and went over a mined area in his efforts to escape and was blown up. Is his widow to be perpetually penalised for something which was not within her power? Is she to have no pension at all because of something that certainly happened because of war service?

Sir W. Womersley: Under the Royal Warrant I have power to deal with these cases of misconduct and to award a full pension, or, if it is a case of really serious misconduct, then I can allow a partial pension. I have that right, and I can assure my hon. Friend that when it comes to dealing with widows' cases, fully realising that in any event the woman had

nothing to do with the misconduct, I exercise that right as a rule.

Dr. Guest: The Minister says that as a rule he would exercise that right in favour of the widow, but that would mean he would exercise it only in certain cases. It is tremendously important that the widow should not be penalised.

Sir W. Womersley: But we cannot deal with that point in this Bill.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Appeals against the final settlement of extent of disablement.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) Where, in the case of any such claim as is referred to in Section one, Section two or Section three of this Act in respect of the disablement of any person, the Minister snakes an interim assessment of the degree of the disablement, he shall notify the claimant thereof and if, at the expiration of two years from the time when he first notified such an interim assessment, he has not made such a final decision or assessment as is referred to in the next following Sub-section, an appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the interim assessment in force at the expiration of the said period of two years and from any subsequent interim assessment, and the Tribunal on any such appeal may uphold the Minister's assessment or may assess the disablement at such higher or lower degree as they think proper.
In this Sub-section the expression 'interim assessment,' means any assessment other than such a final assessment as is referred to in the next following Subsection.
This is the Amendment which deals with a matter which we discussed on the first Amendment. The Amendment provides that there shall be a right of appeal from an interim assessment and that that right shall arise at the expiration of two years from the time when the man was notified of such an interim assessment. I think that I might at the same time deal with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Our later Amendment provides that this right of appeal shall not come into operation until—

Mr. Turton: On a point of Order. The Attorney-General has suggested that we should discuss Sub-section (2) at the same time as Sub-section (1), but I have an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (2), and I suggest that it would be more con-


venient if we discussed the Amendment the Attorney-General is moving now and discussed Sub-section (2) later.

The Deputy-Chairman: We can only discuss two Amendments together by the agreement of the Committee, and perhaps it would be better if we discussed only Sub-section (1) now, unless there is general agreement.

The Attorney-General: Then in putting forward this Amendment I must not refer to the fact that by a later Amendment this cannot come into operation until the Minister's decision has been given, and that is a principle which I think commends itself to the Committee. We put forward the interval of two years as being reasonable. It has been said before, but I think it should be repeated, that these cases are under constant administrative review. Whenever a man complains that his circumstances have worsened he gets a new medical board or examination, and although we agree that in principle there ought to be this right these are not cases which are left without constant examination. So far as there is likely to be controversy or friendly criticism I think it will arise on the Amendments to which I cannot at the moment refer.

Mr. Bellenger: I take it that this Amendment is intended to meet the case put up in an earlier Amendment which I did not have the opportunity of moving, and, if so, I should like to say a few words upon it. As the Bill is drafted, Clause 5 only gives the right of an appeal to an appellant on certain specified grounds, namely, whether the Minister was right in rejecting his claim under paragraphs (a) or (b) of Clause 1, but he has no right of appealing to the tribunal on the assessment of his disability and the pension that goes with it. The Minister may say, "I accept your claim as being attributable to or aggravated by your war service, and I assess your disability at 40 or 50 per cent." The claimant may disagree with that assessment, thinking it is not sufficient, but under this Clause as drafted he cannot appeal against that assessment until the Minister makes a final assessment. My Amendment was drafted to deal with that point, and the Minister has met it to this extent that he is prepared to allow the appellant to appeal against the assessment of his dis-

ability after two years from the first assessment of his disability by the Minister. Therefore, although at some time he has the right of appealing against his assessment of disability, it is not to be earlier than two years from the date when the Minister fixed his first assessment.
The procedure at the moment is—and I presume that this procedure will still operate after the Amendment is carried—that if a man is discontented with his assessment he can appeal to the Minister of Pensions to reconsider the matter. I understand that the Minister then, if he thinks fit, passes the claim on to another board to adjudicate upon, not a pensions appeal tribunal but a board under his control. As I understand the position, the man can frequently appeal to the Minister if he thinks his disability has worsened or his assessment is not sufficient, and the Minister, as long as he accepts it as a serious claim, will give it consideration in his Ministry.
My first question is this: If the Committee accept the Amendment, will the man still have the right to ask for his interim assessment to be reconsidered by the Ministry of Pensions? The next point is: If, after two years have elapsed, he goes to a pensions appeal tribunal and his assessment is fixed either up or down, is that assessment still an interim assessment or is it in the nature of a final assessment, as it would be under the Clause as now drafted? These are my two substantial points. The two years is perhaps a little long. I think the man should have a right of appeal to the pensions appeal tribunal a little earlier than two years. In principle the Minister has accepted what was contained in my Amendment. I would ask him, in the absence of a valid reason as to why the man should not be entitled to appeal under two years from the date of his first assessment, that he should make it one year. By the end of one year a man has had a chance of seeing where he stands. He has probably gone out to work and taken some light job, and he can see whether he is able to cope with it. In many cases where the Minister has given 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. disability pension, men have found that when they try to take on work, especially war work, they break down and are not able to continue it. They may have a period in hospital or away from work. While they are in work and drawing


wages, especially war wages, they are probably prepared to accept the Minister's assessment, but as soon as they fall out of work they feel that they ought to have a bigger pension because they cannot keep up the pace. That is a very good reason why the Minister should alter this two years to one year. By that time, the man will have found his feet in civilian industry, or he will not have done so and he should have the right of appeal.

Major Manningham-Buller: I am glad that the Government have given this right of appeal. My objection is that a man who thinks the assessment is wrong will have no opportunity of having it put right until he has suffered under it for two years. I would ask the Government to consider making provision that men who are dissatisfied should be allowed to appeal as soon as the assessment is arrived at. I quite see the point about not having the appeal tribunals flooded and so on, but a man ought to be given the right of appeal once in two years, and that immediately after the assessment which does not satisfy him. Such an appeal would not be final and would not stop the man applying afterwards to the Minister to have his assessment raised or stop the Ministry reducing that assessment if circumstances justified. A further point is that the Amendment merely provides for the Sub-section being inserted in the Clause, but the Clause will not come into effect until there is an Order in Council. It means conferring a right which may not be very valuable or, if it is of any value, that value will arise only at an indeterminate date. If my right hon. Friend would put those two points right, I would be perfectly satisfied with this concession.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: As one who had his name down to the Amendment on page 384, I accept in principle the Amendment submitted by the Minister, but there are one or two points which should be clarified. It is important that claimants should know that they have an appeal within the period of two years. It might easily be surmised that, an interim assessment having been made, the man concerned would not be able to appeal within two years. Persons who were particularly dissatisfied might labour under what they considered an injustice for those two years, and that would have a mental, if

not a physical, effect upon the individuals concerned. So, for the sake of health and happiness, I hope it will be made very clear, and that the Minister will make it quite positive, that no matter what the interim assessments may be and despite the fact that the individuals cannot appeal to a tribunal within two years, they have the right to appeal to the Minister and that the Minister will see that their cases are reviewed by a medical board—not the one that made the interim assessment but by another medical board altogether.
That would mean that an individual will feel that if a medical mistake has been made it can be rectified within the two years. If sufficient evidence is adduced, I hope that interim assessments will be altered. I assume also that if an individual makes an appeal to the Minister and is successful in getting an increase in the interim assessment, it will not mean that he will have to wait a further two years from the time he gets the improved assessment before he can appeal to a tribunal. I quite see the advantage of the degree of assessment being determined by medical boards in preference to tribunals, as a board will consist of medical practitioners who will be able to assess a man's degree of disability. I would ask the Minister for an assurance that everyone will have a right to an appeal to the tribunals two years after the assessment is made and will still have the right of appeal to the Minister. I should be prepared to accept this concession.

Mr. Beverley- Baxter: The period of two years is too long, but, human nature being what it is, I do not think we can allow this to go by without some regulation about the period of appeal. We all know that there is a type of chronic applicant who would be on the Minister's doorstep every three weeks. Therefore the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is a compromise which might be adopted. I would support the hon. Member's suggestion of one year.

Commander King-Hall: If a man wins his appeal at the end of two years, is the new assessment retrospective?

Mr. Burke: I take it that, in connection with the two years, the Minister will be also bound not to review the case within that period and not to attempt


a reduction in the assessment. I agree that the period of two years is too long, but I hope that the Minister is similarly bound as is the man himself. Further, if a man has his case reviewed by the Minister who alters the first assessment, will the two years date from the time that the Minister reviewed it or from the time of the first assessment?

Sir I. Fraser: The insertion of any period by this Amendment raises the question of how long it will be before these things begin. I do not want to embark upon a discussion of that point, because we have agreed to take it upon a later Amendment. My acceptance of the Clause must of necessity be contingent upon what assurance the Government give us that they will not delay unduly in bringing the Clause into operation. It is on that understanding that I accept this proposal. While I am speaking, may I say a word about the two-year period? I ventured to suggest this two-year period to the Government, and I am glad they accepted it. The reason is that experience shows that there is a period after a man has been very severely wounded during which it is deleterious to him to make him appeal-conscious. It is bad for him to feel that he is in a contentious way with the Government. It is very much better if he can be brought to trust the medical man who is looking after him and who is seeing how his wounds are going on and giving him a little more attention if he is worse and so on. Confidence is better built up if the idea of constant or early appeal is out of his mind. I think that is true, and I am assured by the Chairman of the British Legion, which has so much experience of appeal courts and its procedure—and I believe it—that it is better not to have too early an appeal and not to have it too frequently.

Sir W. Womersley: What is our procedure regarding these assessments? A man has an assessment, and if he is dissatisfied, he has the right of appeal to the Minister. Immediately we get an appeal we order a further examination by a different board entirely, so that the man is not being assessed twice by the same board. We think we shall get an impartial opinion in that way. If the board decide that the man's claim is good, they assess his disability at whatever they feel

is right. There are cases in which they find that the man is really improved, and they reduce the assessment. You cannot have these appeals unless they go both ways. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) wanted me to give him an assurance about this system, which has worked extremely well, and I have the assurance of the British Legion on this point. They have exercised the right on behalf of many men in making appeals to the Minister, and have never been refused re-examination. They are satisfied that there have been no complaints on this question of interim assessments.
I can assure the hon. Member that we shall continue to give that right of appeal to the Minister. Sometimes that appeal comes through a Member of Parliament. I shall continue to regard that as a right too, in spite of the fact that we are to provide for these appeals to a tribunal. I want to keep as many cases away from the tribunal as I possibly can, and the only cases I can keep away are those in which I satisfy the claimant. Otherwise he is bound to go to the tribunal. I shall do everything I can to carry on with the methods we have had in the past.

Dr. Haden Guest: What are the number of medical men on the tribunal in the Minister's own assessment tribunals?

Sir W. Womersley: It varies, though it is not a tribunal; it is a board. It is always two at any rate. There may be abnormal conditions during a war, and we have sometimes to make the best use of the material available. It is regarded as a fully constituted board in ordinary times.

Dr. Guest: I am only trying to help the Minister. It is not just one medical man?

Sir W. Womersley: No, I would not consent to that at all. I would not call that a board; at all events, I would not call it a fair board. The question has been raised as to why we want to delay bringing this in for some time.

Mr. Turton: I thought we had agreed to discuss that on the next Amendment, when we could deal with the matter fully.

Sir W. Womersley: This matter has been mentioned in the course of the discussion, and I have been asked to give a direct answer to it. Why we put it


at two years is for the reasons stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser); it is the fact that it is much better to carry on with our ordinary procedure until there is something like a settlement of the disability rather than have men coming in frequently, which would possibly be harmful to the man himself. The two years come about in this way too. We realise we shall have to take this in steps. I mentioned that on Second Reading, because we could not possibly set up enough tribunals to deal with all the claims we shall get under this heading. Therefore, to save disappointment on the part of those who are claiming, we must operate it so that a certain number at a time are dealt with. It is a convenient way to meet that position that those who have had two years disablement come in proper order, That is the best way of dealing with it.
There are two things to be considered. It will give time for both the claimant and ourselves to get to the point when it is worth while appealing, these examinations having gone on meanwhile. Also it will provide that flow that I want in the proper way; there can be no complaint about anyone getting in the queue ahead of the others. I give the assurance that we shall carry on with the system I have mentioned, which has given universal satisfaction as far as I know, and shall bring this new provision into operation. There are some men who have had assessments for two years, but I am asking the Committee to agree that it shall be left to me to decide the dates, subject to pressure from Parliament, because we have these tribunals on entitlement sitting. It has already been said by the Attorney-General that we regard this question of entitlement as the most important of all, because the men concerned have no pension at all. We think they have the first right to have their cases heard rather than a man who is complaining about the amount of his pension. It is important that we should deal with assessment, but our first duty is to those who have not a pension and who think that they should get one. We must concentrate our main attention and our staff on dealing with those particular cases.
The position as regards staff is a very difficult one indeed. Everybody knows what the position is about man-power

and about woman-power. Trained people are needed to deal with this work. It is quality as well as quantity; otherwise it will not be to the advantage of the claimant. Bear in mind also that we have to carry out the new provisions laid down in the White Paper, which will mean an enormous amount of extra work being thrown on our staff in the next few months. I do not want to keep the people who are to benefit by these concessions waiting. We have fixed a date when we hope we shall be able to carry out those Amendments as regards extra rates of pay and so on. It means issuing hundreds of thousands of new books, a tremendous job. I want that job to be done thoroughly and well. To add to that interim assessment tribunals would just break the machine. It is not possible to do it.
All I am asking is that the Committee will allow the date of the commencement of proceedings before these particular tribunals to wait until I am in a position in my Department to deal with and handle them properly. What is the safeguard against delay? it might be asked. The safeguard is Parliament, the House of Commons, because if hon. Members feel that I am delaying this matter too long, they can put Questions at Question time, they can raise it with me, and I shall expect to be cross-questioned about it if I am unduly delaying. I can assure the Committee I shall bring these tribunals into operation—it is not merely a vague promise but a definite promise—as soon as it is practically possible.

Mr. Baxter: Will the Minister clarify one point? Where we have personal knowledge that the condition of a wounded and disabled man has suddenly become worse, can we as Members of the House make an appeal to the Minister although two years have not elapsed? Would that be in order, in spite of the fact that the man was not eligible to appeal?

Sir W. Womersley: In every case where a Member calls my attention to what he considers a low assessment I immediately order that the case shall be examined by a board, and a different board from that which examined him previously. That is a method we shall continue to follow. [Interruption.] I thought that answered itself. If a new


assessment is made, it will date from the date of the new assessment, because in the meantime the man has had the opportunity to appeal to me as many times as he likes. In the case where a tribunal approves any decision which increases the assessment it runs from that date.

Commander King-Hall: If the Minister has rejected an appeal and the man does not have the right to appeal to a tribunal for two years, would it not be the case that if his assessment is increased by the tribunal he will have been deprived of that increase in the intervening period?

Sir W. Womersley: A tribunal of this kind will have to decide what was the degree of the disability of the man at the date when they examined him.

Amendment agreed to.

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1943.
2. Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943.
3. British North America Act, 1943.
4. Greenock Port and Harbours Order Confirmation Act, 1943.
5. Provisional Order (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1943.
6. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bucks Water Board) Act, 1943.
7. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chiltern Hills Spring Water) Act, 1943.
8. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Banbury Water) Act, 1943.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Harrogate) Act, 1943.

10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Wetherby District Water) Act, 1943.
11. London County Council (Money) Act, 1943.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the, Chair]

CLAUSE 5.—(Appeals against the final settlement of extent of disablement.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2).
My reason for claiming that we should discuss this second Sub-section separately is that I wish to avoid confusion. We have just agreed to a right of appeal, to be exercised by everybody who gets an interim assessment if, after a period of two years, he does not get a final assessment. We have also agreed to a right of appeal for everybody who has a final settlement made. In this Sub-section we take away those rights which we have conferred, by saying that the Section shall not come into operation until such date at may be appointed by Order in Council. While I agree wholeheartedly with the right of appeal which is conferred, I view with suspicion and distaste this taking away of such a right by what is, in my view, a highly irregular procedure. The Minister, as far as I can understand, said on an earlier Amendment that he wanted to have this right of denying an appellant the right of appeal, because, otherwise, he would be flooded by appeals. Let us consider the appeal against interim assessments. That appeal cannot take place until two years has elapsed from the making of the interim assessment. Therefore, the Minister's fear can be related only to a period of at least two years after the passing of this Act.

The Attorney-General: Two years after the making of the first interim assessment. There are men who have now had their first interim assessment made two years ago.

Mr. Turton: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that explanation. That makes the position far worse. It means that there are men who at some time have had an interim assessment made, with which they are dissatisfied,


and that, by this Sub-section, we are going to deny them the very right of appeal which the House has unanimously granted. I see no reason why that right should be denied. It may mean more work for the Ministry of Pensions, but the rights of disabled men do, and should, take priority in the consideration of this Committee. If more officials are required, let them be taken from other Departments. I see some Government Departments with plenty of officials, and it would be no great problem to spare one or two to enable these disabled men to have the right to appeal in respect of interim assessments.
Let me come to the final settlement. This final settlement is not made until the Minister deems that the circumstances in each case permit it. I entirely agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said. I do not wish these final settlements to be made too early—I do not think that that would be in the interests of the disabled men—but once they are made, it is highly improper that the House of Commons should, by any subterfuge, try to deny them their right of appeal. The Minister has, under this Sub-section, a wide discretion as to when he makes his final settlement. Once he has made it, let us declare that there shall be a right of appeal against that settlement immediately.
Finally, I would ask, whether this is not a very curious way of drafting a Bill? We give in previous Sub-sections rights of appeal, and then we say that they shall not come into operation until Parliament, having passed this Act, later passes an Order in Council bringing them into operation. If we are satisfied to-day that there should be interim assessment rights of appeal and final settlement rights of appeal, why not say so, instead of making it dependent upon later decisions of the House? I ask the Committee not to pass this Sub-section. I think the Minister will have adequate protection without it. I regard the long period of two years between the interim assessment and the disabled person's right of appeal as being sufficient safeguard. As regards the final settlement, it is made quite clear that the Minster will have to be satisfied that the time is ripe for a final settlement before he makes any final settlement. Therefore, he can use his discretion to ensure that there is no great flood of

appeals against final settlements at a given moment. It is because the Minister has adequate discretion and because this Committee are unanimously in favour of these rights of appeal that I ask Members not to cut short these benefits.

The Attorney-General: I think the clue to a wise decision on this subject depends upon two principles, one of which is that first things should come first. I will say a word or two as to the order in which, in our view, these various cases should come. Secondly, as and when the right of appeal is conferred, it is important that you should be able to deal with appeals as promptly as possible, particularly appeals from interim awards. Everybody knows the difficulties which war conditions impose on man-power in all directions. My hon. Friend said, "Borrow a few civil servants from other departments." That is not a very easy thing to do, as my right hon. Friend can tell the House.

Mr. Turton: There is a cutting down now taking place in Government Departments.

The Attorney-General: The important point is that it is very specialised work and it is very difficult to get people who are able to operate these things at short notice. I am very anxious that the Committee and my hon. Friend should accept the view that in making this proposal we are not anxious to shirk anything or to provide officials of the Ministry with an easy time. We make this proposal because we believe that it is the right way to approach this problem. I do not believe that anybody in the Committee would dispute for a moment that entitlement cases are the most important, and nobody would dispute that from the time of the passing of the Act, the appellate work will throw a considerably increased volume of work on the Ministry and its officials. Casualties and war injuries will not stop, indeed may increase. Therefore, the day-to-day work of the Department, apart from the preparing of the statements for the appeal cases, which is, in itself, a very considerable job, will go on. In any event, you are going to place an increased burden on an already hard-worked staff.
There are three categories with which to deal, the entitlement people, the final award cases and the interim assessment


cases. If you have not a suspensory provision, such as exists in Sub-section (2), all appeals of all three categories, would come forward the day after the Act was passed. There is, apart from this, the starting of the tribunals, and it is difficult to foresee how many entitlement appeals there will be. There will, undoubtedly, be a substantial number. We felt that it was right to see that the machine should not be clogged by entitlement appeals. This House has said to all these people, "You can appeal," but if after appeals from the second and third categories come in the entitlement appeals being the most important, you put these people on one side, you will have delay. My right hon. Friend has no desire to do that. He desires to make all this machinery operate as quickly as administrative possibilities and the starting of the tribunals will allow.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend feels strongly about this and if one were dealing with an unlimited staff there would be great force in what he said. We believe that it would really be misleading people if we passed the Bill in the form which is suggested so that in respect of all these three categories, the right of appeal should operate forthwith. We do not think that that is possible. Therefore, the honest and fair thing, not only for us but for the people, is to provide for entitlement cases to come into force at once, and the other categories of appeals as soon as may be afterwards. The Minister can be heckled and asked how he is getting on, but in principle we believe it to be right that the Bill should enable these categories of appeal to be postponed until the back of the entitlement appeals is broken. It is right to say this, and those more familiar than I am with pension cases—the British Legion, and those who have made a study of this subject—will agree that there has been great pressure to introduce the appellate tribunals for entitlement cases. The interim assessments, on the whole, give satisfaction and there has not been anything like so urgent a demand for appeals in that case. For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel that this is not an attempt to get out of anything, but an attempt to be honest and straightforward with the Committee and with the men concerned, and to see that first cases are dealt with first, and the others as soon as possible on

getting the machinery with which to deal with them.

Mr. Hogg: It may be that the Attorney-General has made an unanswerable case, but I cannot help thinking that there will be other Members of the Committee, besides myself, who feel a good deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. I am speaking for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) when I say that he certainly does not regard a possible delay in the operation of this Clause with anything like equanimity. We have already got people who want to appeal under this Clause who have been waiting for more than three years. You have those who were in the campaign before the fall of France who are over the two years' limit, and those who were in the Far East campaign, and the 1941 campaign in the Desert are just about on the two years' limit. I cannot help feeling that the Government have a little lost sight of the fact that, even as regards interim assessment, it is a matter of some urgency.
A very strong case has been put up by the Attorney-General, and the Minister himself in relation to the last Amendment put forward the same case. He said in the first place that you must have priority, and that entitlement cases must come in front of assessment cases. That may very well be true, but it is only true if and in so far as the appellate tribunal machinery is insufficient to deal with the whole number of appeals. That is not a matter which can be looked at with anything like equanimity. Consequently, he says that the actual burden of work which would be brought to bear upon the appellate tribunal machinery, would be more than that machinery and the office could bear. Again, that may be true. It may be that we have to yield to that argument, but it is, in the last resort, allowing oneself to yield to a purely administrative argument when a vital human problem is at stake. It may be that we have to do it—the Attorney-General has made a very persuasive case—but we cannot do it with anything like equanimity. I feel certain that there must be several Members of the Committee besides myself who would like at least some indication from the Government of when these Orders in Council may be expected to come into


being. We do not look upon it as other than an urgent problem. Campaign succeeds campaign and new groups of people are brought in, while there are others waiting their turn although the two years' period has already lapsed. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale explained that the period of two years was carefully arrived at, among others, by the British Legion, as being a reasonable period based upon the length of time during which a serious wound tends to fluctuate. So far as people who have already been waiting for three years are concerned, it can no longer be held to operate and a new and more severe period is already in operation. For these reasons, although it may be that the Committee cannot accept the Amendment, it has a great deal of sympathy from me.

Earl Winterton: I desire to associate myself with my hon. Friend. I apologise to the Attorney-General for not being here at the beginning of his speech, having been called to the telephone on work connected with another Department. I would make an appeal rather on the lines of that of my hon. Friend. From what I heard of the speech of the Attorney-General it was a powerful argument but I did not like his reference to "the machinery." We have had too many references to machinery. We had a calamitous one on a previous occasion by the Minister himself. It is not a question of the strain placed upon the staff of the Ministry of Pensions. Surely the question should be considered by the Ministry in the light of the urgency of the matter. We are always hearing of fresh Ministries of different kinds being set up, such as the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Can it be said that it is outside the bounds of possibility for the Minister, if he is short of staff, to apply to the Treasury for permission to have a larger staff? I hope, therefore, however strong the argument may be for postponement, if there is any postponement, it will not be on the basis of the strain on the staff at the present time. Most of us will regard the matter, in view of the time that has lapsed since it was first propagated in the House and the country, as urgent, and I hope that the Minister of Pensions and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take objection to the Amendment on the grounds of the strain upon the staff of the Ministry of Pensions.

Dr. Haden Guest: I should like to be sure that the only question that can arise is the question of assessment.

Sir W. Womersley: That is so.

Dr. Guest: It is not a question of disability. I want to make that clear, as I do not think it is clear to everybody. I am one of those who rather forced home the point that staff could have been provided at an earlier stage. I think that the Attorney-General has put up a very strong case, but from the standpoint of the man himself you must distinguish between human and administrative cases. As far as the human case goes—and nothing could be stronger than that—you should meet that by the machinery. The Minister does so in every case. If there is any case in which a man feels aggrieved by his assessment and the matter is raised with the Ministry, either by a Member of Parliament or otherwise by a direct reference, it is, as the Minister recently explained, referred to a board of medical men who review the case.
It seems to me that if the tribunal makes the assessment, it would be final. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg the Committee's pardon, but in any case the Ministry's board gives a man all the possible help he could require. It is a fact that at the present time there is a tremendous pressure on staff. You cannot just take a civil servant from one Department, put him on to this work and let him carry on. You cannot take a doctor from other work and transfer him to this work and expect him to be able to do it. There is a strict limit to the number of doctors available at the present time; there is a great demand for their services and there is likely to be a still greater demand. The case which the Attorney-General has put up is a very sound one. On the point of humanity, everything the man could desire can be given to him by a review of his case by the board in the Ministry itself and, on the administrative side, I think the Attorney-General has put forward a case which should be accepted.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'different,' in line 3, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Amendments made: In page 5, line 3, after "for," insert:
Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) respectively and for.

In line 3, at the end, add:
to which those respective Sub-sections apply."—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: From this Clause it appears that the initiative in making the final award is to come from the Minister. It states:
it appears to the Minister that the circumstances of the case permit a final settlement.….
I wonder whether it would not be equitable to give a similar right to the pensioner. If the pensioner had had his pension reduced twice or perhaps three times he might feel that he would like his pension to be finally fixed. In those circumstances, would it not be right to allow him to make application for a final award?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not think it would be a good thing from his point of view. I do not think anybody would want to do that. I think a claimant would prefer to wait until the Minister himself initiated the proceedings for making final assessment. Until then, the claimant could come back to us and say that his disability had increased. This request has never been put to me by any of the ex-Service men's organisations.

Dr. Morgan: Sometimes these proceedings are delayed and if it were found that an organisation, such as a trade union acting for a claimant, under medical advice, submitted a request for the Minister to make a final move, I think that ought to be granted.

Sir W. Womersley: If a request were made in such a direct way and with such a backing, I would undertake to consider it. But some medical evidence ought to come with it. It should not be merely a matter of a man's own request, because sometimes people ask for things which are not good for them.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, at the end, to insert:

(2) Where, in the case of an appeal to the Tribunal under Section one, Section two, Section three or Section four of this Act the appellant or the Minister is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal as being erroneous in point of law, he may, with the leave of the Tribunal or of a judge of the High Court nominated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor, appeal therefrom, within such time as may be limited by rules of court to the judge so nominated and the decision of that judge shall be final and conclusive.
Rules of court may provide that, where an appeal is brought under this subsection, a case shall be stated by the chairman of the Tribunal.
There is on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller) and others, suggesting that there should be an appeal to the High Court on the question of principle. That Amendment was put down to raise the point, as obviously people may differ on what is a question of principle. We have thought it right to put down the Amendment I am moving—and which I commend to the Committee—to give a right of appeal to the High Court on a question of law. That is a very common provision in the Statutes. There was no such right in similar legislation dealing with the last war but, of course, this legislation brings in many other categories and raises many other problems. There might well be a difficult point of law as to what was a war risk or war service injury, and we are grateful to hon. Members for having raised this point, because we think it would improve the Bill to have this power of going to the court. It would be undesirable, if there were some question of instruction, to have tribunals taking different views. We have said that the appeal should only be by leave of the tribunal or court. If there is a real point of law, I imagine that the tribunal would be only too glad to have it settled by the court. But it must be safeguarded in that way. We also think it right—although this arises on a later Amendment—that where leave is given and an appeal on a point of law is taken to the court, whether the proposal is initiated by the man or the Minister, the State should pay the costs of both sides. It is really taken as a test case in order to get points of principle decided and, therefore, where leave is given we think that is the right procedure. Of course, if a man applies for leave and fails, he has to pay his own


costs but where leave is granted, we think the taxpayers ought to pay the costs.

Earl Winterton: Some of us, when we first looked at this Amendment, were slightly concerned at the prospect of the costs falling on the appellant when there was an appeal. The fact that the Attorney-General has made it clear that the costs will be paid by the Government, does away with any difficulties that may arise on that point. In view of the fact that some of my hon. Friends, who have more experience than I of the working of the Pensions Act, have put down Amendments rather similar to this Amendment, I do not want to oppose it but I would like to mention one or two points which I think should be considered. First, and most important, is the fact, as the Attorney-General himself said, that we have nothing of this kind in previous pension Bills.
That may not seem important, but I think it is important for this reason. Nobody who has sat in this Committee and heard the discussions on the Royal Warrant and the Questions which have been put to the Minister, can fail to realise that the meaning of words in the Royal Warrant or in the Pensions Act, are subject to more controversy than almost any other subject in the administrative world at the present time. It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that the three Clauses under which an appeal can be made to this new body contain a number of words about which, on some occasions, the Committee and the Minister have differed. On several occasions we have had assurances from the Minister—and assurances are binding on his successors—as to the meaning of particular words. But let nobody forget for a moment that a judge would not be bound by them. He would say, "I am not concerned with promises which the Minister has given in connection with the Royal Warrant; I am concerned only with the interpretation of the words in the Act." I think the Committee should face that. We might have a long course of proceedings before a court. We might have a great number of appeals both by the Minister and by individuals.
I feel slightly concerned about another point. I am sure that the bodies to be set up, will be composed of men of the highest character but the Amendment says:

…may, with the leave of the Tribunal…
Is there not some danger that, perhaps without wanting to do so, tribunals may get into the habit of granting appeals at the request of the Minister and not at the request of individuals? The tribunal settles whether an appeal shall take place or not. Suppose an appellant appeals in case A and is dissatisfied and says, "The tribunal has misinterpreted the Act on the subject." Suppose the tribunal does not give him leave to appeal and that later the tribunal, at which the Minister is legally represented—

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I might be allowed to interrupt. The Minister would not be legally represented before the court. We shall come to that later. We must assume that the people on the tribunals will act impartially, perhaps even be swayed a little in favour of the man. If a man is turned down, he can go to the High Court. If a tribunal refuses a man, he can get leave from the High Court.

Earl Winterton: He can then go to the High Court. I presume that payment of the expenses to which my right hon. and learned Gentleman refers also applies to an application to the High Court.

The Attorney-General: If he succeeds.

Earl Winterton: That shows how very fortunate it is that someone rose before the Clause was put to the Committee. That does not meet my point at all. If you are going to set up a new body of this kind, you must be scrupulously careful to see that it in no way injures the prospects of the ex-Service man. Therefore you must make it as easy financially for him to act under the machinery as it is for the Minister. Obviously, if he goes to the High Court to make an application and is unsuccessful, and has to pay his own expenses, it will be to that extent a deterrent. One of the disadvantages of the present method of doing business is that, if you have a regular Opposition, with a Leader, there is no point that escapes notice, but under present conditions Clauses go through without full consideration. I submit that the points that I have raised are worthy of some consideration and should be dealt with, if not now, before we come to the Report stage, especially the question of the costs of appeals.

Mr. Hogg: There is on the top of page 389 a somewhat cognate Amendment in my name raising a slightly different point from that raised by the present Amendment. Is it your intention, Mr. Williams, to call it separately, or would you prefer any argument on it to be dealt with now?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman and the Committee agree that we should discuss the two together, I will fall in with the arrangement, but if there is any request to discuss them separately, they will have to be discussed separately. Does the Committee agree to discuss them together?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to put before the Committee the reasons which led my hon. Friends and myself to put down our Amendment. We believe that the Government Amendment represents a real step forward. It is vital in any complicated mass of legislation to, keep the administration of it in different parts of the country the same, so that it would not be possible for a tribunal in one part of the country to differ outrageously from a tribunal in another part. We accept the view of the Government that to allow an appeal on a point of law, whether direct or by way of case stated, will give an adequate safeguard against that. But the Government Amendment contains no provision for setting aside the verdict of a tribunal where it may have been obtained by misconduct—misconduct in the technical sense applied to judicial officers. I appreciate with the Government that it is important to make the decisions of this tribunal as final as possible, but, in order for them to be accepted by the public or by the House, it is vital also that they should command confidence. Therefore there ought to be in existence the same type of machinery as exists in the case of a verdict of a jury, or the award of an arbitrator, which are equally final, to set it aside where it has been obtained by what is technically known as misconduct. I do not suggest that the tribunals that are likely to be set up will be composed of men of other than the highest character, but, as the Bill is at present drafted, even if the tribunal accepted bribes, there is nothing that could be done.

The Attorney-General: I do not agree.

Mr. Hogg: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will deal with that. There are other forms of misconduct which are less unlikely to occur. An Arbitrator who expresses a view strongly before the hearing of a case in such a way as to preclude him from forming a fair decision cannot make a valid award. Suppose a member of a tribunal holds very strong views as to whether or not cancer can be aggravated by war service in such a way that he is impervious to argument. As I see it, such an award would stand.

Dr. Haden Guest: Doctors are never impervious to argument.

Dr. Morgan: May I on behalf of my profession deny that soft impeachment?

Mr. Hogg: Where professional opinion differs it is for the layman to make his decision. I have known no class which has not members among it who are impervious to argument, and even in the highest judicial circles there have been judges and magistrates impervious to argument on particular points. That is the exact issue that I have in mind. A military member of a tribunal, being a layman, might say, "I knew this man. He was an awfully good fellow. Anything he says must go." That is not acting judicially. Or he might say, "I knew him in the Middle East, and he was a malingerer." No decision that that man came to would be worth twopence as a judicial decision. We thought that if that sort of thing happened, the same sort of procedure ought to be open to either side to set aside the verdict of the tribunal as is open to a litigant in the case of an arbitration, where the whole bent of the court and of Parliament has been in favour of finality as here, or the same sort of procedure open to an appellant or to the Minister as is open to a person who is dissatisfied with the verdict of a jury. Although I welcome the Government Amendment, I should have preferred to see it go that little bit further and give power to set aside a decision which has been improperly obtained by reason of some kind of misconduct on the part of the tribunal, not necessarily of an immoral character but of an unjudicial character, which would rob it of any claim to confidence in the eyes of the public.

Mr. John Dugdale: To return to the point raised by the Attorney-General, I


understood first of all that costs were to be paid by the court. The Attorney-General said afterwards, "only if the claimant is successful."

The Attorney-General: I thought I said that, if leave is given either by the tribunal or by the court, costs will be paid by the Government, whether the claimant loses or wins. The one exception is that if a man applies for leave and does not get it, he bears his own costs, but if leave is given, the costs are borne by the taxpayer, whatever the result.

Mr. Dugdale: That satisfies me entirely.

Earl Winterton: It does not satisfy other people. I hope the Attorney-General will consider whether he cannot equalise it completely. Surely, if a man fails in his appeal, it would be quite a small thing for the Government to pay his costs, whether successful or not. As between the Minister and the individual there would then be no sort of differentiation.

Major Manningham-Buller: I understood that the costs of the hearing of the appeal in the High Court would be paid by the State in any event and the only time when the applicant had to pay any costs out of his own pocket was when he had applied to the tribunal for leave to appeal and been refused and then applied to the High Court. He had to pay the costs of that application, which would be very small, if the application was refused. I personally take the view that that is quite right, because you cannot have the High Court flooded out with innumerable applications. A man who applies to the High Court has presumably had his application already turned down by the tribunal. I think it is quite right that there should be a slight deterrent on making applications to the High Court.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could we have any indication as to what the costs might be?

Major Manningham-Buller: I should not like to give a definite assurance, but it would not amount to more than a few guineas at the outside, and very likely it would be done for nothing.

Dr. Morgan: I think the concession should be made, but the cost would be much more than a few guineas. It might

be anything from eight to 20 guineas. The man has to get advice. He cannot speak in court and may have to brief someone. If the tribunal has given leave to appeal and the court turns him down—

The Attorney-General: If he is given leave, he can get his costs.

Dr. Morgan: If the tribunal gives him leave to appeal and he wins his case—

Hon. Members: No.

Sir W. Womersley: Whether he wins or loses, he gets them.

Dr. Morgan: If the tribunal refuses him leave and he appeals to the court and the court turns him down, he has to bear his own costs.

The Attorney-General: If the court refuses.

Dr. Morgan: I still think it is unfair. He may have taken advice; he may have been guided by lay advice. His costs, which may seem to us slight, would be a great deal to him, say six to to guineas. It is really a plea that he should be deterred from unnecessarily appealing even when he thinks he has a justifiable case and has been advised by someone who thinks he has a knowledge of pension matters. Why haggle over things of this kind, when it means very litle to the State? I hope the Government will give way.

Mr. Silkin: This may seem a relatively small point, whether an appellant should be able to go to a judge when an appeal tribunal has refused him and whether that should be facilitated or otherwise, but we have to recognise that in the case of many applicants a matter of a few guineas is a very important matter. We have also to recognise that where a tribunal has already refused a pension the bias of the tribunal will be towards refusing leave to appeal. That at any rate is my opinion. It is human nature. Therefore I think an appeal to a Judge should be facilitated and that there should be no court fee to be paid when applying to the Judge. That is already provided for in workmen's compensation cases. Normally the court fee is quite considerable. I hope also it will be possible for an appellant to appear before the Judge through a friend, and that it should not be necessary for him


to employ a lawyer. Legal people require to be paid, but if a man is a member of a trade union, it ought to be made possible for him to be represented through his union, though that is not possible normally when appearing before a High Court Judge. If the Attorney-General can give an assurance that there will be no court fee and that the appellant may be represented by a layman, I think the Committee might accept the Amendment as it is on the Paper.

Mr. Naylor: I should like to mention a question which has been considered when we were discussing the White Paper. What I want to know is what will be the position in regard to a man who has met an injury on home leave. This is a question of high principle. In the event of a man who has met an injury in those circumstances appealing to the Minister for consideration, he will be told by the Minister that his case is outside the terms of the Royal Warrant. I want to know whether that man can appeal to the tribunal and whether he will have the right to ask the leave of the tribunal to take his case to court on a question of principle. There are many of us who think that we could make a good case to prove that a man on home leave is still in the service of the Army. It seems to me that a man injured in those circumstances has a case at least for consideration. It is an important matter, because any decision would govern not only the individual case but all subsequent cases. I ask whether it is possible for such a man to get his case considered with a view to the legal principle being settled by the high court.

Mr. Buchanan: There is another point to be considered when a man is dissatisfied and is refused leave to appeal. We have had experience of cases of widows' pensions now for a number of years. Usually the tribunal is presided over by a King's counsel. He hears the application, and if there is a point of law, there is a right of appeal in Scotland to the Court of Session or in England to the High Court. I hope I am not saying anything unfair to the legal profession, but I have found that a Judge of high standing is much more likely to give leave to appeal than an ordinary lawyer. The ordinary lawyer somehow or other is much more afraid of being turned down

than a Judge, though the Judge himself perhaps might have been afraid of that at the time when he was on the verge of being a Judge. The Judge has much more confidence in his opinion. Another point is that there will be a number of men who will argue their own cases. In that event expenses are bound to be smaller.
If he engages counsel, I presume a man will be advised before he decides to go to the High Court, and I am bound to say I have not found any tendency on the part of counsel to rush a man into court. I give them their due in that respect. They often advise us to keep clear of the courts, and I have known cases which might well have been carried on for a further period brought to an end because counsel do not want to carry on cases simply for the sake of carrying them on. If, however, counsel advises the man to go on, I think it may be taken that that means there is a prima facie case. I do not know English procedure, but my knowledge regarding Scotland is that if you lose a case on appeal you are mulcted not only in your own costs but in your opponent's expenses. That seems to me to be going too far. I put it to the Attorney-General that a number of these men will be poor men, some of them will be disabled and some quite unfit to work, and I do not think they should be compelled to pay their own expenses and the Government expenses as well.
I want the Attorney-General to rise and do the right thing. I would like him to get up and say that the Government will make it a point of practice not to do that. In many cases it would be impracticable to collect the money. If a man is disabled and it is held that his injury did not occur through war service, and he has incurred expenses amounting to about £10 and in addition is landed with a Government debt, it will be impossible to collect the money from him. Whatever else you throw over, throw over any attempt to collect Government costs and make it positively clear because it will be impossible always to collect them. Long ago in Scotland we abolished Poor Law relief on loan and I wish it were abolished in England. We found it was impossible in practice to collect it and it was a costly business. I hope the same will be done here. Whatever costs a man is mulcted


in, I hope the Attorney-General will see that no portion of the Government costs is landed on him.

Sir I. Fraser: It is important that we should have in our minds, and particularly that ex-Service men should have in their minds, that for all practical purposes the appeal tribunals are the final courts to decide the men's cases. Any impression that there is an easy appeal over and above the ordinary appeal tribunals will destroy one of the most important factors about the work we are doing to-day. The men in the country and everybody concerned must feel, as they have felt for the last 25 years, that the appeal tribunals are fair and good and are the last word. It is represented that there might be an unusual occasion, perhaps only occurring once or twice in the first year, while doubtful points of law arise. Generally, when you begin to operate a system there are found to be doubtful points and after one or two test cases they are established. In order to ensure that no injustice is done by any chance Parliament says that there shall be this right of appeal on points of law, but let no one, particularly ex-Service men, be led into believing that it is a right of appeal on any other grounds. Therefore, make it rare and not wholly free. To encourage an ex-Service man to appeal, or to encourage some solicitors perhaps always to advise that an appeal to the High Court with costs paid is a good thing, would be a mistake and would undo much of the work we are seeking to do. Let us have virtual finality in the appeal tribunals and only appeals in the rarest possible cases.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale(Sir I. Fraser). I agree with what he says in the last part of his speech, but I do not think he quite appreciates the situation. It is not a question of appealing to the ex-Service men to treat tribunals as finality and to make these cases rare. The point is that for the first time in the administration of pensions we are giving the right of appeal on three provisions which contain a 'number of sentences which from the legal point of view are highly contentious. The new appeal body is to decide in terms of law the meaning of three sections of the Bill

which contain words which may be interpreted in half a dozen different ways. While I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that no one wants to see a lot of appeals, it ought to be realised that a great number may arise, because this is a wholly novel procedure. The experience of this House and of anyone interested in trade union legislation will agree that when a right of appeal is given to decide the meaning of an Act of Parliament in matters of compensation it leads to a lot of appeals.

Dr. Peters: The laughter that greeted the reference to solicitors advising appeals falls coldly upon my ears, because in 40 years I have never charged one penny in any case of this kind, and I do not think it is the practice of solicitors to do so. There is one paint which the Attorney-General might like to have pointed out to him. The Clause says that there shall be a right of appeal, but it does not say to what court the appeal should go. The Attorney-General said that it would be the High Court, and it might be wise to insert that in the Bill.

The Attorney-General: That, I think, will be dealt with by the rules, but it is clear that it must be to a Judge of the High Court. May I say a word on what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said? He referred to his Amendment which provided that a person could get a decision of the appellate tribunal set aside on the same sorts of grounds on which you could get a new trial in the High Court. I think that he put the Amendment down to raise the point rather than as a final solution, because a lot of the grounds, like misdirection of the jury and improper admission or rejection of evidence, would not apply to the class of case with which we are dealing. In the sort of case he put, where there might have been evidence of misconduct, or bias, or bribery or expression of opinion before the case was heard, I would remind him that the High Court does in these matters exercise a control over subordinate courts through what is still called by the Latin name of order of certiorari. That is an order by which a decision of a lower court, which has either exceeded its jurisdiction or acted contrary to proper natural justice, can be brought up and quashed. The appellate tribunal is subject to an order of certiorari. There was one in the last war. Therefore, all


that branch of law which has been built up over a long period of time for exercising control over subordinate tribunals which are liable to err, being human, is available, and it is important that we should have that in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that these applications will be ex parte, that is to say, a man will go, and the Minister cannot appear to oppose him. The man who has been refused by the tribunal will go to the court with an affidavit, and I do not think any question of paying the costs of the other side would be likely to arise or could arise.
On the main point, we still adhere to the view which I indicated. It is undoubtedly unusual, but it is right and proper in cases of this kind, that if leave is given the taxpayer should pay the costs of either side, whatever the result. I think it would be going a little beyond what is reasonable to say that where a man has had the matter considered by the tribunal and has got a refusal, because he goes to the court and is turned down on what may be a trivial point, the taxpayer should pay the costs. I hesitate to be too dogmatic about these tribunals, but they have been in existence for 25 years, and there have been other similar tribunals. I do not believe these tribunals would have any reluctance to operate this Clause if they were satisfied—and it is rather a difficult question to be satisfied on—that there really is a point of law. Everybody knows that people in their position are very often glad of guidance. These tribunals are regarded always as working in a sympathetic atmosphere. In the case put they will be saying, "On the whole we think we must refuse this case because of a point of law," and I should have thought that there would be no reluctance on their part to have the point reviewed by a court, because it would relieve them of a certain responsibility. I hope the Committee will accept that view, because we feel that in reviewing this matter we have done our best to produce a reasonable situation.

Mr. Naylor: Is not the Attorney-General in a position to answer my question?

The Attorney-General: I think the ordinary rules must apply. I do not think we could make a special provision

to operate in this one small possible instance of the tribunal refusing and the man going to the court. Provision is made for costs, including court fees, by the proposals which are made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 7, at the beginning, insert:
Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing Sub-section."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from, "Tribunal," to the end of the Clause.
I am grateful to the Minister for having attempted to meet the point I am raising, although I am afraid I do not think it has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner. The words I ask to be left out were in Section 6 (2) of the War Pensions Act, 1921. In my view those words did give a certain unnecessary direction to the pensions appeal tribunal and would make the onus of proof against the appellant. The Minister has now altered the onus of proof in the Royal Warrant, and I think I can convince the Committee that it would be better to leave out these words if I read what this Subsection will be if the Minister's Amendments are passed:
In determining an appeal under this Act in respect of any claim or award the tribunal shall have regard to the terms of the Royal Warrant, Order in Council, Order of his Majesty or scheme under which the claim or award shall be made and of any enactment under which any such scheme is made, being terms relating to the issue before the tribunal and"—
And these are the important words:
shall not allow or dismiss the appeal unless they are satisfied that their decision is well founded having regard to those terms.
We presume that we are going to appoint reasonable men as a tribunal to decide these appeals, and to direct them that they have to be satisfied that their decision is well founded seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I feel sure that on mature reflection the Attorney-General will see that it would be better to cut out those words.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Member's views about these words. We clearly cannot leave them out. What we have to provide for is that the tribunal are to proceed on the basis of the Royal Warrant. The earlier words say, "They shall have


regard to the Royal Warrant," and they have to be bound in both directions. The Royal Warrant, as amended, includes provisions which are of great importance to the applicant, the provisions dealing with the onus of proof, and one has to use words which make it plain that the appellant tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal or allow it unless they are satisfied that their decision is well founded having regard to those terms. I have no particular feeling one way or the other about what words are used, but I should have thought that these were words which anybody could understand and put the position more intelligently than things are expressed in some Acts of Parliament. In the Act dealing with pensions after the last war it was stated that the tribunal should not allow the appeal unless they were satisfied that it was well founded. I do see that a very good point could be made there, because it looks as though the law was being weighted in favour of dismissing the appeal. There was a sort of warning to look at the Warrant before they allowed the appeal. I thought that that objection, which I thought was my hon. Friend's only objection, was completely met by putting in the words, "or dismissed." That makes the direction perfectly neutral, and I do not see an objection to using words to ensure that what this House intended should happen, namely, that the tribunal must be satisfied that their decision is well founded having regard to all the terms of the Royal Warrant, including those in favour of the man and those which limit his right. I hope the hon. Member will agree with our Amendment and not press his.

Mr. Turton: In my view the words would appear to an ordinary layman to be nonsense, and I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend at some later stage to try to produce some legal term that would have more strength than "have regard to." To direct a tribunal that they must be satisfied that their decision is well founded does not strike a layman as being a very sensible proposal.

The Attorney-General: I do not want to pledge myself, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will be prepared to have a look at the words before the Bill reaches another place. I thought these were quite satisfactory words.

Major Manningham-Buller: It seems to me that all that the tribunal will look at will be the words:
shall not allow the appeal unless they are satisfied,
and that seems to cast the onus again on the appellant and to conflict with the terms of the Royal Warrant. I ask the Attorney-General to consider whether he could not provide that the appeal tribunal should be bound by the terms of the Royal Warrant and leave out the word "satisfied."

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: I wish to endorse the view put forward by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), because these words are really verbiage. If they mean anything at all, they only mean that the tribunal shall come to a conclusion and then decide that they are right. Another meaning that could be given to them is that they must not, if they are satisfied that the pensioner is right, find for the Minister; and, alternatively, if they are satisfied that the Minister is right, they must not find for the pensioner. That is what those words mean if they mean anything at all. This is really a cumbersome attempt to implement the undertaking which was given with regard to the amendment of the Royal Warrant, and I want to hear from the Attorney-General how he is envisaging the implementing of that undertaking. You do not alter the onus of proof simply by putting in the Royal Warrant words saying that there shall be no onus of proof on the applicant. You do not get rid of the difficulty by simply putting in such words, because you have to deal with the practical situation of parties coming to a court, and anyone who has been in a court of law knows that one party or the other has to begin and somebody has to prove something. I want to know how the Attorney-General does see this working out. I find it a little difficult to see how, by simply putting in the words, "there shall be no onus on the applicant," you in fact deal with his position when he comes before the tribunal. He will have to go before them and say, "The Minister has refused me a pension, and these are the reasons why I think I should have it." It could, of course, be done by appropriate rules of procedure stating how the matter is to be carried out, but at the moment I find


it impossible to discover anywhere in this Bill any implementation of the undertaking in regard to that question of onus of proof. Certainly these final words that we are dealing with in this Clause do not deal with it; they are merely wasted words which have no meaning at all.

Earl Winterton: The Attorney-General has now returned from one of his numerous conferences on these points, and I am not surprised that he has had to have them. I congratulate the Minister of Pensions on not having to get this Bill through Parliament with an ordinary Opposition in action, because it has been dealt with in a very peculiar way in some respects. We are in complete doubt as to what is the reason for these words—not only laymen, but lawyers as well. The Amendment we have recently discussed has given a right of appeal if there is a mistake made in law by a tribunal. Now we come to the Amendment under discussion. The words which we have passed say—and I apologise for reading them again, but this is important—that they shall determine an appeal under this Act in respect of any claim or award, etc. Very well; if they do not determine that appeal in respect of these matters, there is an appeal to the High Court Judge either by the Minister or by the appellant.

The Attorney-General: Only on a point of law.

Earl Winterton: Yes, and so I come to my point. The only point of law which I can see would arise would be as to the meaning of the terms of the Royal Warrant, or of the Order in Council, or of the Order of His Majesty, or of the Act which we are discussing. It would be on one or more of four or five things that the appeal on the point of law would be allowed under the words which we have just passed. If the tribunal makes a mistake in respect of the interpretation of those words, they will be, so to speak, called over the coals and brought before the High Court. If I am right, what on earth is the reason for putting in the words:
shall not allow or dismiss an appeal unless they are satisfied that it is well-founded, having regard to those terms"?
What is the reason for putting them in at all? If they have failed to carry out their duties under the Section, there is

already an appeal against them. In what other Act of Parliament is it laid down that if there is an appeal from one court to another, the junior court shall not allow or dismiss the appeal unless it is satisfied? Is there any other instance in legislation of such terms being applied to what I may call the junior court?

The Attorney-General: The answer is in the Act dealing with this matter after the last war. The words in the Bill were taken from a Section in that Act.

Earl Winterton: The words of the Amendment?

The Attorney-General: No, the words in Sub-section (3). I do not think those words are particularly clumsy or obscure. They have stood for 25 years, but I am prepared to see whether we can put it rather more shortly. We cannot go back at this stage. We can do it by leaving out the words:
being terms relating to the issue before the tribunal,
and so on, and instead of, in the second line, "have regard to," put "shall be bound by."

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.

The Attorney-General: I quite agree. It is shorter, and it produces the same result. We can at any rate claim that the words were in the last Act. They have always been used, and where a previous Act of Parliament has dealt with a thing and we start altering it for other than a reason of substance, people are apt to think, in this House and outside, that we want to produce some different result. If the Committee feel, as they obviously do, that this is a rather cumbersome phrase, I am quite agreeable. I think the best course would be to accept the Amendment and, at a later stage, if the Committee would allow it and if it is taken to-day, to have a manuscript Amendment substituting "be bound by" for "have regard to." I think the Noble Lord was not quite right on his point as to why we need Sub-section (3). We need it to make it clear that the tribunals have to apply or be bound by the various instruments. It is perfectly consistent to have another Sub-section which says that there can be an appeal on a point of law from their decision. I do not think the two things are inconsistent.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Would it be possible to substitute for the whole of the last sentence the words "and shall decide accordingly"?

The Attorney-General: There are various ways of doing it, and I have suggested one.

Earl Winterton: We are most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. We all understood the words in the original Act, but what he is seeking to do is to amend the original Act, and it was to the Amendment that we took objection, because the effect was to make the words look ridiculous. We are very grateful to him.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Do I understand from the Attorney-General that the Minister is not going to move the next two Amendments?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

The Deputy-Chairman: The best course would be for the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) to move his Amendment and then to add in afterwards further words.

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Mr. Turton: May I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Attorney-General?

Amendment agreed to.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, at the end, to add:
(4) The Tribunal shall not reject an appeal on account of the refusal of a certificate by a medical officer or board appointed by the Minister, but the Tribunal shall in each case determine the appeal upon its merits.
This is a short Amendment merely to make it clear that the appeal tribunals will not in any way be incommoded by the fact that a board of doctors appointed by the Minister has not granted a certificate, which is a condition precedent to the grant by the Minister of a pension. Without some such provision, the tribunal may consider itself bound to dismiss an appeal on finding that the Minister had acted rightly in refusing a pension because no certificate has been granted by a board of doctors or a medical board appointed by the Minister. It is a precautionary Amendment, so that the tribunal

hearing the appeal shall do so on the merits of the case.

Sir I. Fraser: The relationship between the Royal Warrant and the Bill is very much in our minds, and one is guided in one's attitude towards the Bill by one's attitude towards the same words as they appear in the Royal Warrant. The Attorney-General will recall that a paragraph in the White Paper foreshadowed words to be put in the Royal Warrant relating to this matter. Some of us have been exercising our minds as to whether the fact that a man has to obtain a certificate means that it is not the Minister who grants pensions at all, and does not invalidate the onus of proof, the presumption and the benefit of the doubt provisions of this paragraph. How can a doctor decide having regard to a presumption? He can only decide having regard to diseases. We were under the impression that the whole point of setting up these tribunals was to judge of the acts of the Minister, but it appears that we are judging of the acts of his doctors. He is not really a person at all. He cannot take the action of giving a man a pension unless one of his doctors gives the man a certificate. If that be so, it seems a very important point. We should like to have the assurance that the presence of these words about the certificate will not prevent a case coming to the tribunal and will not negative the whole of the onus of proof concession which we think the Government meant to make to us.

The Attorney-General: There are two points here. The point raised by the Amendment undoubtedly concerns the appellate tribunal. I am sure my hon. Friend realises that if the point which he is seeking to negative by his Amendment was a good one, namely, that the appellate tribunal could never allow a pension unless there were a certificate, it would mean that it was not the slightest good setting them up. The whole object of setting up tribunals is that in cases where there is no certificate, and therefore no pension, the appellate tribunals shall reconsider the whole matter and shall be entitled to say that the Minister was wrong and that there shall be a pension. Therefore I would not like to put in this Bill, and it would be quite wrong, I think, to put in the Bill, a provision which really makes nonsense of the whole scheme of the Bill. But what I do agree with the


hon. Member about—and the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) will realise that I am still on the second point—is that I do think it is right that we should have a look at the Royal Warrant and insert words into that making it clear that a decision of the appellant tribunal has the same effect as a certificate. It might be said that that point should be expressly provided for. It has always worked all right, but when these points are raised it is right to put them right. I will certainly give an undertaking that we will see that a provision is put in to make it plain that the tribunal is free to decide an issue quite irrespective of the fact that there is no certificate.
The first point is really a point on the Warrant, but I have the authority of my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee that he has under consideration the question that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale has raised. I think it would be quite wrong to leave the Committee with the impression that under the Warrant as it is the onus of proof Clauses have not full effect. They have, and indeed their main object is to bind and guide those who have to come to medical decisions or give medical advice as to the position. I mean that in this most important area, the onus of proof provision as regards medical grounds, the man is to have the benefit of the doubt and so on. I do not think the first point arises on this Bill, because Clause 1 of the Bill is in no way based on the existence of this certificate. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that since this point was raised in the Debate the other day it has been considered by the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Application of Act to past decisions and assessments.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end, to add:
(2) Any decision of the Minister given before the passing of this Act which corresponds, apart from any difference arising from the terms of the Royal Warrant, Order in Council or Order of His Majesty, as the case may be, in force when the decision was made, with such a decision as is referred to in Section one of this Act, shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be such a decision, and an appeal shall lie therefrom accordingly

This is really a drafting Amendment. It is to get over technical difficulties which might have been raised upon the alteration of the Royal Warrant. It might have been said that if the Minister's decision was given in different words, it could not be subject to appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, order to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Time limit for appeals.)

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 28, after "under," insert "any provision of."

In line 28, after "Act," insert "except Sub-section (1) of Section five."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Dobbie: I beg to move, in page 5, line 31, to leave out "twelve months," and to insert "five years."
The Amendment in my name deals with the question of the time limit for appeals. My friends and myself are of the opinion that 12 months is rather too short a period to allow for an appeal to be made. It does not give a proper time for wounded persons to come to a conclusion really as to whether they will make an appeal or not. It is quite possible for deterioration of wounds to set in not one year but two years or three years after, and these are the reasons why we have decided to ask the Minister to accept five years instead of the one year which is in the Bill at the present time. It may be that even five years is not a long enough period, but we are certainly of the opinion that one year does not give the opportunity of coming to a firm decision on the part of the claimant as to whether or not he will make an appeal against a decision. We shall be glad if the Minister can give this consideration and accept five years instead of one year.

Sir W. Womersley: I am sorry that I cannot fall in with the wishes of my hon. Friend, but I think that when I have explained he will see that there is ample time given to the appellant to make his claim. No time limit of any kind will apply until the Minister makes an Order. It is not a question of 12 months from being discharged from the Service. It is 12 months after the Order in Council is made, so that past cases will have more


than 12 months, of course. In future cases 12 months will, I think, give a reasonable time, and it is just as well to get these cases in within as reasonable a time as we possibly can. There is, of course, the right which is provided if a reasonable excuse why an appeal did not come in in the time is given. I think this is the right period and will not work to the disadvantage of the appellant.

Mr. Silkin: I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision. I visualise a case where a man applies to the Minister for a pension and is turned down, possibly on the ground that the injury did not arise out of war service. That man may be in some difficulty in getting necessary evidence on which to put in an appeal. A witness or some person who might have given evidence on behalf of the appellant may be abroad, may be on service, or the appellant may not be able to find him; he may have come home, and the appellant does not know his address. Such a witness may turn up two or three years later. Under the Bill as it stands if further evidence arose after a year the appellant would not be able to appeal.

The Attorney-General: There is a later Amendment to give power to extend the time.

Mr. Silkin: Even so it does not depend on the Minister, but I will wait and see what the Amendment says.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to put before the Committee a slightly different point of view from either that of the Government or the Mover of the Amendment. There are before the Committee four alternative courses already on the Order Paper in relation to this particular matter. The first is the Bill as presented—a year from the appointed date. Those who have moved this Amendment say that a year is not enough, and I am inclined to agree with them, but that in itself is not satisfactory. It is obvious, I think, that the effect of making a person appeal within a year and thereafter lose his appeal is to deprive him for ever of justice. Those who have moved the Amendment say five years. That is more generous; I would prefer five years to one. But I do not think that that is the right way to approach the grievance. In all matters of appeal, the thing that matters is not the period of time within which the appeal must be brought, but

the power of the tribunal to extend the period when injustice would otherwise be brought about. There are injustices caused by any rigid period of time, whether it is one year or five. Therefore, I suggest that it is better to have the existing period with the right of extension, than to have the extended period but to keep it rigid.
Then comes the question of what is to be the nature of the extension which is provided. The Government say that the tribunal ought to have the right of extending the time if they consider that there is reasonable excuse for the delay. In the view of my hon. Friends and myself, that is not good enough, because the test of the circumstances in which the tribunal should extend the period is not whether there was a reasonable excuse for delay, but whether any injustice will be caused by precluding the right of appeal. It is precisely the man who has no reasonable excuse who may be the man you want to help. A man who has, let us say, lost both his legs, and is therefore the sort of man we want to help, may, by ignorance of the law—which is no excuse—by inadvertance, even by laziness, have let the time go by.
We say that a mere piece of neglect on his part should not debar him for ever from receiving his right. We suggest that the correct thing is to accept the alternative in our names, that the tribunal shall have power to extend the time on such conditions as the tribunal shall think just. That is to say, if a man has caused a lot of trouble and expense to people by his carelessness, he may have to pay some of the costs arising from the delay; but there should be no rigid bar against his obtaining justice.

The Chairman: If the Committee agrees, it might be convenient to discuss all four Amendments relating to this matter together.

Mr. John Dugdale: I want to put the matter from a different point of view. After the last war the question arose about a man putting in a claim at all. It was decided that he could put in an original claim up to seven years after the war. What is going to happen in this case? Suppose that a man does not put in a claim for four or five years after the war, and suppose that when he does put it in it is turned down. Is there any right of


an original claim? It seems to me that, if the Minister's proposal is adopted, if anybody appeals more than a year after the appointed day his appeal will be invalid; but if his original case is not brought up until two or three years afterwards, that will deprive him of any right of appeal. In fact, the right of appeal will cease before the right to bring his original case ceases.

Sir W. Womersley: I assure the hon. Member that that is not so. He is referring to the seven years' period in the Royal Warrant of the last war and the period in which the man can claim for this war. That has nothing to do with this question. When the man's claim has been refused, he can appeal within 12 months from that date.

Mr. Dugdale: Not 12 months after the appointed day?

Sir W. Womersley: No.

Dr. Morgan: Take the case of a seaman who goes on a long voyage, and after that voyage, which lasts perhaps four months—I am speaking of a case of which I have knowledge through my trade union connection—he sustains an accident, and has to remain a considerable time in hospital. During that time he does not bother much about letters, except to find out whether his people at home are all right, and to let them know that he is not.

Sir W. Womersley: Such a case is dealt with.

Dr. Morgan: Is it dealt with on the grounds of reasonable excuse?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes.

Dr. Morgan: If reasonable excuse is to be liberally interpreted to cover cases of that kind, that meets my point.

The Attorney-General: I would suggest that the form of the Government Amendment is, on the whole, the best. This is always a difficult question. One can, at any rate, assume that the tribunal would construe reasonable excuse generously. It is desirable that men should be encouraged to bring these appeals on, in their own interest and in the interest of arriving at the real facts. I am told that in the Act of the last war there was no power

to extend the time, which was a flat 12 months. The Minister has told me that in some cases people were shut out and wanted to bring their appeals on afterwards, and we thought that there should be power in this Measure to extend. We do not believe that it is going to be a big problem. I agree with my hon. Friend that the question is not so much one of reasonable excuse for delay as of injustice which might be done. We believe that the period of 12 months is quite reasonable—and the man has only to put in his notice; it is not necessary for the case to be completed. Happily, too, these ex-Service men are looked after by the British Legion and other organisations. If a man does not put in his appeal within 12 months, he has to produce some excuse. It is not sufficient to say that he has sat still and the time has passed by. We believe that the tribunal will construe reasonable excuse generously, but that the principle should be affirmed in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made.

In page 5, line 4o, after "operation," insert "in relation to that decision or assessment."

In line 43, at the end, insert:
Provided that the Tribunal may allow an appeal to be brought after the expiration of the period limited by this Sub-section if they consider that there was a reasonable excuse for the delay.

In page 6, line 3, at the end, add:
(3) No appeal shall be brought under Sub-section (1) of Section five of this Act unless notice of that appeal is given in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under the Schedule to this Act not later than three months after—

(a) the date on which the period of two years referred to in the said Sub-section expires; or
(b) the date on which the said Subsection comes into operation in relation to the assessment from which the appeal is brought; or
(c) the date on which the said assessment is notified;
whichever is the latest of those dates.
Provided that the Tribunal may allow the appeal to be brought after the expiration of the period limited by this Sub-section if they consider there was a reasonable excuse for the delay."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Notices.)

The Chairman: I think it might be convenient if the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg)—in page 6, line 5—is discussed at the same time as that in the name of the Minister, in page 6, line 7.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, after "writing," to insert:
and shall specify that the claimant has the right of appeal to a Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the decision given, the time within which such appeal must be lodged and the procedure to be adopted in lodging such an appeal.
The object of the Amendment is to effect a convenience for the purpose of the appellant, which is all the more important in so far as there is a time limit within which the appeal must be brought. It would be easier to adopt from the point of the view of the Minister, because it is only a question of printing another form, but it very often does happen that the appellant does not know his right of appeal, and it is to everybody's advantage that he should be told about it. Since my Amendment was put on the Order Paper the Minister has put gown an Amendment of his own, the purpose of which is to achieve the same result. What the difference is I have not yet learned.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I wish to support the Amendment. It is understandable that if my hon. Friend as a lawyer is unable to find any difference in meaning between the wording of his Amendment and that of the Minister I as a layman cannot define it. I prefer the wording of my hon. Friend. We have granted a pension appeal tribunal to all who have a disability, and it is essential that we should put before them in clear and emphatic language what it is. It should be made clear in simple language that they have the right to appeal, and the procedure they must adopt, and on balance I think the words of my hon. Friend are rather more preferable to those of the Minister and I trust they will be accepted.

The Attorney-General: There is a slight difference. Obviously the only notices on which you want to set out the time of appeal procedure and so on are notices from which there can be an appeal. There are one or two other notices referred to in the Clauses of the Bill from which there is no right of appeal. Apart from that, the

words produce the same result and I hope that the Committee will for that reason accept our form of words.

Dr. Morgan: Is the Attorney-General going to accept the Amendment?

The Attorney-General: No, the Amendment will not do, for this reason. In our form of words we make it clear that this provision telling people about the appeals shall naturally enough only apply to notices from which they can appeal. That is the difference between the two forms of words. There are in the Bill one or two other references to notices and it would be most misleading if in connection with a notice in which there was not an appeal you set out how you ought to appeal. There is no difference between us and my hon. Friend.

Dr. Morgan: This is apparently a legal wrangle, and I do not understand the attitude at all. I want to make it clear that the man should be notified and should have the right of appeal.

The Attorney-General: He will be notified.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 7, at the end, add:
and, in the case of a notice of a decision from which an appeal lies to the Tribunal, shall specify that fact and the time within which and the manner in which notice of such an appeal must be given."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Power to modify ss. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Act by Order in Council.)

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name on this Clause.

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member would touch upon it on the Motion "That the Clause stand part."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hogg: The point which I desire to raise is that under the Clause as drafted His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make certain modifications in the Act such as appear to him to be necessary for the purpose of extending rights of appeal in


the event of changes in the Royal Warrant. In the view of my hon. Friends and myself it is not enough to give that power, and the object of the Amendment standing in our names was to make it mandatory, to state in the Act that the Minister must give the power to appeal in suitable cases where the Warrant is altered. As the Clause is drafted at the moment, it is a matter for the discretion of the Minister whether he advises His Majesty to issue an Order in Council giving this power. We thought it would be better to lay down definitely in the Act that he must always do so. I should be grateful to the Government for an explanation of why this view is wrong.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend would no doubt agree that under the procedure in Orders in Council "may" is the word which this House has always used, though I think many cases could be found in the Statute Book where it was plainly not only the intention of this House but it was necessary that Orders in Council dealing with or tidying up or providing for certain matters should be issued, and the thing might break down if you did not issue them. I agree with my hon. Friend that in the realm of logic he is right. If there are alterations, this appeal must be made, but the proper procedure is that we have first of all to proceed by way of amending the appeal, because that is the right way to do it, and there would be the formal document altering the form of this appeal should it become necessary to do so. Suppose there were some further alterations to the provisions we have discussed so much in Clause 1 and the words of the Royal Warrant were altered. There should be some form of instrument not merely saying that a man could appeal under the Royal Warrant as altered but amending this Bill so as to make the two things fit. The proper instrument for amending the Bill is an Order in Council, and one cannot use the word "shall" with regard to His Majesty's Order in Council, so therefore I hope my hon. Friend will accept the position. If there are extended rights of appeal then alterations must be made and the Act made to apply. But there are precedents for this type of procedure. There would be a first-class row in the House if an Order in Council was not issued making a provision when the time came.

Mr. Baxter: Is the word "may" permissive on the part of the House of Commons or is it just a prognostication? What is the difference between the words "may" and "shall"?

The Attorney-General: "Shall" has never been applied to an Order in Council. We have never said that His Majesty "shall" issue an Order in Council.

Mr. Baxter: What is the meaning of the word "may"?

The Attorney-General: The word "may" gives power. In many cases, as a matter of strict law, although the House of Commons has used the word "may," where it is coupled with a duty it has been construed as "shall."

Mr. Tinker: Is it not an act of courtesy to His Majesty not to say to him that he "must" do certain things? Behind it all is the power of Parliament but His Majesty has never gone against it.

The Attorney-General: It has some constitutional importance.

Mr. Baxter: My only point was that "may" seems a little condescending.

Mr. Hogg: If that were the only difficulty, it would be easy to adopt a form of words such as that on the Order Paper which does not refer to "His Majesty by Order in Council" at all.

Dr. Morgan: Apart from the majestic reference, is there not a consensus of legal opinion which in courts interprets "may" as "shall" in regard to such matters as this?

The Attorney-General: I would not go so far as that.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Statutory right to pensions.)

Sir Cyril Entwistle: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2, after "made," to insert:
or whose appeal under this Act has been granted.
I shall be willing to withdraw this Amendment, if the Attorney-General says it is not necessary, but as I read this Clause, it only gives an applicant a statutory right to a pension when he has already received the pension. It says that


where the Minister has made an award, the claimant has a statutory right to a pension. So far as I can see there is no actual provision which says that when an appeal has been successful, there is any obligation on the Minister to make an award and entitle the claimant to a pension. I agree that it is unlikely that he will not make an award if the appeal is successful, but as this gives a statutory right I think it is tidier to have the words inserted to make sure that the right would flow, as a matter of course, from the appeal.

The Attorney-General: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend has moved his Amendment because it enables me to make the position clear. The words are unnecessary because the award has to be made in all cases. The tribunal deals with the issue of, say, entitlement and you have to have an award. What the Bill means when it says that the decision of the tribunal is final and conclusive, is that, so far as an outside matter is concerned, the Minister has to make an award on that decision.

Sir C. Entwistle: Where does that appear? My right hon. and learned Friend has said that if a tribunal makes a decision, the Minister is bound to make an award. What provision of the Bill says so?

The Attorney-General: There is no express provision but that is the effect of showing that the decision is final and conclusive. As my hon. and learned Friend knows since the last war—and I think it is quite clear—the issue that goes to the tribunal in ordinary entitlement cases is not the issue of, for instance, the degree of disablement or the percentage amount that may come later on an interim assessment but the issue of entitlement. Then the Minister has to make an award and he has to consider all the various other provisions of the Warrant. But the issue of entitlement is concluded. There may be cases in which no award would follow. For instance, the Committee will remember the discussion last Tuesday with regard to parents' pensions. At present there is not an automatic flat-rate parent's pension. You may get an issue going to the tribunal of whether a son's death was due to war service. They may decide that it was, the Minister having decided that it was not. Then the Minister would have to direct himself to any questions

under the Royal Warrant which determined what amount of pension would go to the parents in that case. The award has to follow on the decision of the tribunal. Therefore, the words which my hon. and learned Friend suggests are unnecessary.

Sir C. Entwistle: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Do you intend to call my Amendment in page 7, line 3, at the end, to insert:
and such award shall commence as from the late on which Army pay and allowances ceased.

The Chairman: No, the Amendment is out of Order, because it goes beyond the terms of the Financial Resolution.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Interpretation.)

Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, to leave out from "forces," to the end of line 28.
This Amendment and the further Amendments to this Clause are to implement in this Measure the changes which will take place under the new Royal Warrant according to the promises I made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 7, leave out lines 32 and 33.

In line 39, at the end, insert:
'"war service,' in relation to any claim made under any such Royal Warrant, Order in Council or Order of His Majesty as is referred to in Section one of this Act, has the same meaning as in that Royal Warrant, Order in Council or Order."—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: I desire to refer to a point which was raised earlier, namely, the meaning of the words "Civil Defence volunteer." The Attorney-General said I was wrong because the term "Civil Defence volunteer" had the meaning here as it had in the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1939. At the time that Act was passed members of the Civil Defence organisation were, in fact, volunteers. That is to say, they were


volunteers within the meaning of the Act. They were members of the organisation before conscription was introduced. I am asking whether we are quite sure that the words are adequate to cover the persons they are intended to cover, namely, all members of the Civil Defence Service?

The Attorney-General: We will, of course, check this. I think a Civil Defence volunteer is defined as a member of a Civil Defence organisation, and the words do not need extending.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Scotland.)

This Act in its application to Scotland shall have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) for references to a judge of the High Court nominated by the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted references to the Court of Session; and
(b) for references to the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted references to the Lord President of the Court of Session; and
(c) for the reference to a barrister there shall be substituted a reference to an advocate.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

This Act in its application to Northern Ireland shall have effect subject to the modification that for the references to the Lord Chancellor there shall be substituted references to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and for the references to the High Court there shall be substituted references to the Supreme Court.—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up and read the First time.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I have to ask the indulgence of the Committee to explain that we have had a request from the Government of Northern Ireland to add at the end of the words of the new Clause as they appear on the Order Paper the words:
and for the references to the High Court there shall be substituted references to the Supreme Court.
The reason for that is that in Northern Ireland they may find it easier to find judges in the Appeal Court than in the courts of first instance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Constitution, Jurisdiction and Procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, at the end, to insert:
and the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove any member of such a Tribunal.
There is an Amendment down by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) giving a somewhat limited right of removal. We assumed it was plain that the Lord Chancellor would have an absolute right of removal, but when we saw my hon. Friend's Amendment we recognised that it had obviously not been plain to him and might not be plain to other people. We therefore thought it better to make clear on the face of the Bill that the Lord Chancellor has the power of removal. There might be cases in which a man misconducted himself or had not been wholly suitable, or the time may come when it will be desirable to reduce the number of tribunals. We want to make it clear that there is an absolute right of removal, and anything in the nature of misconduct would influence the Lord Chancellor in using his power.

Mr. Tinker: What would happen if the Minister of Pensions thought a member of a tribunal was leaning too much on the side of applicants while we thought he was only doing his duty? Would the Lord Chancellor then exercise his power without our having a voice at all?

Mr. Hogg: It was exactly for that reason that the Amendment in my name provided only for a limited power of removal. The position was that the Lord Chancellor could remove members of a tribunal only if they misconducted themselves, or proved incapable of acting for some well-known reason. I think there was no doubt that the Bill, as drafted, did not contain power for the Lord Chancellor to remove members of a tribunal who proved unsuitable and we thought it necessary that the Bill should contain such a provision. But we did not think it altogether suitable to give the Executive the right to remove a judicial officer. There are cases where it can be done but the practice of the House in the past has


been to assert the right of judicial officers to retain their position against the will and pleasure of the Executive. It was the subject of a very bitter constitutional fight in the 17th century, which resulted in the victory of the House of Commons over the Executive. Even now, judges of the High Court can only be removed on a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and magistrates cannot easily be removed by the Lord Chancellor at his mere whim, and it seems to me to be an evil constitutional principle to give the Executive the power to remove judicial officers at their pleasure, which is what the Government Amendment does. I am not suggesting that it is the intention of the Government to exercise their power wrongly, or that there is any likelihood of a Government coming into power which would do so, but, on the whole, these constitutional principles have been fought for and should be observed. It is not wise to go against the established experience of centuries. I have some doubt whether the Attorney-General has done right in giving an absolute, unqualified right of removal to the Lord Chancellor.

Earl Winterton: I am very glad that my two hon. Friends have raised this question. There is always a tendency in Committee when we are getting towards the end of the sitting to hurry over important points. I hope we shall not do so on this occasion. This Amendment raises a question of great principle. I was going to put the same point as that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and reinforced in a very powerful speech, if I may say so, by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will not resent it, or think it unfair criticism if I put some arguments against the Amendment. Have the Government any analogy for putting in a provision of this kind? I had some experience during the time I was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of the great difficulty of removing magistrates, and so I think had predecessors of mine in that office. I do not think I am giving away secrets in saying that.
I think those who have held the office of Lord Chancellor and have the responsibility for creating magistrates have considered whether there should not be some strengthening of the power to remove

magistrates and have come to the conclusion that the danger of undue political pressure is so great that it is better to leave the system as it is, with all its disadvantages. I think we are entitled to ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he can give an assurance that there is some similar provision in other cases where power of this kind can be exercised. I cannot see myself any reason why the Amendment should not have been moved in its original form. Of course I cannot discuss the Amendment in its original form, but I can suggest how this Amendment should be amended. I think it should be confined to cases of misconduct, which is easily interpreted, or to cases of ill-health, which would enable a man to be removed if his mental powers had ceased to be what they were. Why give these very wide powers to the Lord Chancellor?
Let not the Minister say that it would be monstrous to suggest that this or any other Government would remove a man because he was unfriendly to them. I agree that that is not likely to happen, but we should consider the impression likely to be left on the minds of the public and of claimants, when a member of a tribunal who constantly gave decisions in favour of appellants, was removed without any reason being disclosed. The question would be asked "Why is he removed?" and the appellants would at once say "We know why he was taken away. He was taken away because he constantly decided cases against the Government." I suggest that this matter raises a principle which is really inherent in British law, namely, that the Executive should not have power to remove people from any judicial position, but if my right hon. and learned Friend can assure us that there is a precedent in analogous cases where the Executive has power to remove, then a lot of our objections would fall to the ground.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The Noble Lord was rather disingenuous in suggesting that the words "misconduct" or "ill-health" should be inserted in the Amendment.

Earl Winterton: I really must take objection to that. Those were the words in the original Amendment, and I was really arguing that my hon. Friend's Amendment was better than this Amend-


ment. The term "disingenuous" has been held in the past to be out of Order.

Mr. Nicholson: I think the object of the opposers of the Amendment would be defeated if the Amendment were put in limited terms. What would you see? The members of the tribunals would be dull, dreary, safe people with no imagination and no initiative. Far be it from me to say that that applies to judges. Judges are trained people, but in the case of appointments to these tribunals the Government should have some freedom in trying experiments. If they have no power to remove people without giving reasons, because those people were not satisfactory—

An Hon. Member: Satisfactory to whom?

Mr. Nicholson: Satisfactory to the principles of justice. It is no good imputing bad faith from the start. If you are to have on the tribunals people of initiative and sympathy and experience, it is essential that the Government should feel capable of being able to remove them if they prove unsatisfactory. Otherwise we all know the type of person who will be on the tribunals—people of extraordinary dullness in intellect.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I hope the Committee will accept the Minister's Amendment. I disagree with the Noble Lord for this reason. For two years we have been told, over and over again, by the Minister that he could not find the right individuals to make up these pension tribunals. I have had considerable sympathy with that contention. I think the Lord Chancellor should have power to remove any person, who may not have been guilty of misconduct, on the ground of sheer incapacity. This Amendment is, I think, in the interests of the ex-Service men, because you may in some cases find people who are not adapted by experience or knowledge or capacity to serve.

Mr. David Adams: I cannot believe that the Attorney-General really desires that the Minister's Amendment should be embodied in the Bill. No one desires to prevent the Lord Chancellor discharging a member of a tribunal who ought to be so discharged, but surely we should particularise the conditions under which a member may be discharged. If

we do not do so, appellants and the general public will, in certain cases of discharge of a member of a tribunal, feel that injustice has been done. If we are careful in qualifying these powers—let them be generous and liberal—which the Lord Chancellor may exercise, then all will be satisfied. Without that, there is a possibility that injustice may be done, or that what seems to be injustice may be done.

Mr. John Dugdale: I support what the hon. Member has said with all the more force because of the words used by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). Until he used these words it might have been said that only reasonable grounds would be accepted as grounds for discharge of a member of a tribunal, but the words he used were to the effect that dull, dreary people might be discharged.

Mr. Nicholson: No, I said such people would be appointed. I never said they would be discharged. My case was that you want people of initiative and a certain degree of unorthodoxy on these tribunals. I said if these people could not be used, because there was no power to discharge unsatisfactory members, then we should get dreary people.

Mr. Hogg: What initiative is needed by judicial officers?

Mr. Nicholson: Members of these tribunals are not analogous to judges, who have to decide narrow points of law.

Mr. Dugdale: I agree that you want good people, but whether or not you want people with initiative is another matter. It is one thing to have a right to appoint people and another to have the right to dismiss them. It is presumed that a person who is appointed is a good person, otherwise he would not be appointed. It is quite another matter to say that for certain reasons which have shown themselves afterwards, possibly because of some of his judgments, he ceases to be a good person. If this new rule is brought in for these tribunals, the Attorney-General can only be logical and bring in the same rule for magistrates. As I do not think he proposes to do that, it is not right that he should do it in this particular case.

Sir I. Fraser: I would urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. The Amend-


ment which my hon. Friend and I and others put down defines clearly the kind of ground on which we might, in the interests of the administration of good justice, wish to get rid of people, but the Attorney-General's proposal seems to go rather far. A possible way out is that the Lord Chancellor should be asked to state the ground on which he dismisses a person.

Dr. Morgan: I hope that the Attorney-General will reconsider this Amendment, and I hope, too, that he will not agree that the Lord Chancellor should state the grounds on which he dismisses a person. It would be a difficult position for him to have to state the reasons for taking action against any individual. I hope, however, that the Government will accept a proposal such as was made in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). It would be a dangerous thing to give the Lord Chancellor, even though he holds the highest judicial position in the land, a power of this kind and leave us in the air as to the reason why he dismisses a person. It is suggested that he should dismiss a person for physical incapacity, but he is no judge of physical incapacity. He may be the ablest lawyer in the country, but surely the question of physical incapacity is a matter for a trained medical man. To suggest that the Lord Chancellor should dismiss a man on grounds of physical incapacity, as was urged by my hon. and medical Friend the Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), is absurd. 1 would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the matter and see whether the powers granted to the Lord Chancellor should not be restricted in some way.

The Attorney-General: It is worth reminding ourselves that ever since the last war, the Lord Chancellor, whether he had it or riot acted on the basis that he had an unlimited right of removal. There has never been the slightest suggestion from any quarter that that power has been exercised on other than proper judicial grounds.

Earl Winterton: In what category has he had those powers, and what other analogies are there for them?

The Attorney-General: In the last 25 years the Lord Chancellor has exercised

an unlimited right of removal of members of pension appeal tribunals, and there has never been the slightest suggestion that he has removed a person because that person awarded too much, and no suggestion that he has not dismissed a man except from proper motives. Members of these tribunals are different from judges. A man is appointed a judge after considerable experience of a technical kind. This work is a very special sort of work and also—and this is one very good reason—it goes up and down. There is much more work in one year than in another. For instance, after the last war the work began to fall off very much in 1923 and people had to be got rid of from the tribunals. Another suggestion urged is that when any number of men in this war are released they should be put on tribunals in place of people who have not had service in this war. At the moment it is difficult to get members of the various categories who have fought in this war. It will be much easier when hostilities have ceased and a number of them have come back. That is the kind of consideration which arises here which does not arise in the ordinary way.
It would be unfortunate if the Lord Chancellor were restricted. I think that I am entitled to say that he and his predecessors have exercised their powers with regard to these tribunals without any criticism. When in 1923 and 1924 they had to cut down the numbers, nobody suggested, and there could be no shadow of foundation for suggesting, "You have got rid of fellows who were liberal to pensioners." We attach great importance to the fact that all this side of the Bill has been put under the hand of the Lord Chancellor. The Noble Lord asked me for analogies. I will give him one which I agree is much stronger. The Lord Chancellor can remove the registrar of a county court, who is a judicial officer. In this area he does not contemplate removals, but he does want the right to be able to resurvey the field as more suitable men come back to this country and to put them on the tribunals without any reflection on the men who have previously done the work. Therefore, I hope the Committee will leave us this discretion. I appreciate the general constitutional background, but I hope the Committee will feel that it is all right.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, to leave out sub-paragraph (b)

The chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss this and the Amendments later on the Paper in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's name on the same subject

Major Martningham-Buller: I hope that will be agreed because these Amendments cover the two points I want to raise. They are points in connection with the constitution of the tribunal, and although the argument I am going to propound may be somewhat contentious, I am sure the Committee will agree that it is of the greatest importance that the tribunal should be constituted as well as possible. The two points which these Amendments are designed to cover are these. First, that on the ordinary appeal tribunal a doctor should not be a member but that the tribunal should have the addition of a doctor as an assessor as occasion arises. Second, the appeal tribunal consisting of two doctors should be abolished. The effect of that would be that all the appeals, whether against final assessment or against entitlement, would go to tribunals of precisely the same sort.
The point I desire to make in regard to the constitution of the tribunal can be stated shortly. In this country we have a judicial system in which there is a judge and a jury. It is not our habit to put experts on a jury to try particular cases. We do not insist that a sanitary inspector should be a member of the jury when the case deals with drainage. We do not insist on doctors trying claims for personal injuries. It is our system to have one man exercising judicial functions and a jury, and in the case of these tribunals I suggest that that example could be followed with advantage. Have your legal chairman and two laymen as members and do not give your doctor a vote. With the greatest respect to the medical profession, I think it is undesirable that doctors on these tribunals should have votes, and I can illustrate my argument shortly in this way. Let us suppose that there are two tribunals and two doctors, one on each tribunal. One doctor may take a very strong view about the effects of the pasteurisation of milk and believe that that will prevent disease. The other doctor may take the view that

pasteurisation has no effect at all, and does not prevent diseases. If you have these two doctors on different tribunals—although the person coming before the tribunals will not know their views—they will approach the evidence given before them with pre-conceived ideas, and it is likely their votes will be cast in accordance with those ideas

Mr. Bellenger: Might not the lay members of a tribunal hold similar views

Major Manningham-Buller: That is a conceivable possibility; you cannot anticipate what views might be held by lay members. But in other professions we find people with pre-conceived ideas, and I am trying to suggest that the alteration of this tribunal would go some way to prevent what I have described happening and stop doctors attaching more importance to medical theories than to the evidence given before them in a particular case. I think I have put that point clearly and I hope sufficiently shortly. I would urge, too, that the shortage of doctors is an argument in favour of what I am proposing. The fact that doctors may act as assessors will enable doctors to be provided in every case where it is necessary. That is all I desire to say on the first point.
With regard to the second point, the constitution of a tribunal of two doctors for the hearing of appeals against final assessment, no body will be misled by the statement that this is the same as in the case of appeal tribunals after the last war. That is not an argument in favour of the retention of this type of appeal. I believe from information I have received that there was considerable complaint about that form of tribunal, and I ask the Government to say that there should be just one form of tribunal to try all classes of appeals under this Measure

Dr. Haden Guest: I rise with a certain amount of diffidence, because my only title to speak is that of having myself been a member of a tribunal for some time and never having discovered any of the objections to procedure which the hon. and gallant Member has brought forward. No doubt that was due to my own lack of acute observation. Nor do I quite see how the question of the pasteurisation of milk is likely to arise in these cases.

Major Manningham-Buller: I purposely took an entirely hypothetical case, such as would be unlikely to arise

Dr. Guest: I quite agree. The hon. and gallant Member did put a very hypothetical case; in fact I think his case is so hypothetical that it might very well be allowed to fall to the ground. Having been a member of a tribunal and knowing the work of the tribunals, I say that the three members of the tribunal, the legal member, the lay member and the medical member, work as a very good team. The business of tribunals of this character is to decide a question the chief evidence on which relates to the man's physical condition in the largest sense, and unless the medical man is a member of the tribunal and as a member is being objective and taking a judicial view of the situation, you will, as the hon. and gallant Member said, have to have a medical assessor; that is to say you will have to have a medical assessor who is, as it were, giving the view of the Ministry of Pensions. If he is not doing that, why should he not be a member of the tribunal and be judicial? You will, in fact, have what I may call the workmen's compensation kind of case, which is perhaps what the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. There is an appeal before a court on behalf of a workman, resisted by one individual for an insurance company with certain medical evidence, and other medical evidence being produced on behalf of the man. So there is conflicting medical evidence produced before the Court, on which the judge has to make up his mind. You want two doctors for that purpose instead of one. In view of the fact that these appeals tribunals have had a very long life and have worked with satisfaction—I think anyone who has had anything to do with them realises that they have, within the natural limits imposed on human beings, been fair and judicial in all their findings—I feel the Committee should come to the conclusion that the best form of tribunal to carry on with is the type which has proved effective for 25 years. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in suggesting that, and I venture to think, with great modesty and humility, that the medical profession can be quite as judicial and objective as the legal profession.

Commander Galbraith: I should like to support the Amend-

ment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Daventry (Major Manningham-Buller). These tribunals should not, as I am sure they will be otherwise, swayed by medical opinion on the tribunal itself. As the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. H. Guest) said, the question to be decided will be one of physical condition. The tribunal should decide that by listening to the medical evidence produced on behalf both of the appellant and the Minister. It should judge on that evidence. A medical member of the tribunal is bound to sway the other two members, because he is in an extraordinarily strong position. I do not think that should be so. The tribunal should decide on the evidence, and if the evidence is conflicting an assessor should be called in to decide the matter. The tribunal should be a jury listening to the evidence and should decide on the evidence

Dr. Morgan: With, I hope, as much humility as was felt by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) I would like to support the Amendment. For the last 25 years I have been acting as an assessor. My job puts me in that position every day. I do not decide policy or make decisions, but I advise, trade unions, principally, on how to act in medical cases. I have no hesitation in saying that, without boasting of my experience medically. I do not go on to appeal tribunals. I decline. I do not think I am temperamentally in a position to be the judge of any man. I prefer to advise on whether a man should have a certain assessment or not. I have no doubt whatever, from my considerable experience of workmen's compensation cases, which are entirely different from pensions cases but have a bearing on this point, that the workmen's compensation issue as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington does not exist. The assessor is there, not to weigh up the evidence, Pro and con, in the court, but, with his report beforehand, to advise the judge even before the judge hears the evidence on the other side. The judge takes the opinion of his assessor, plus what he hears in court and comes to his own unbiased opinion. I believe it is unfair that any medical man should be put on these tribunals.
My hon. Friend has just said he thought that the decisions of the tribunals were fair. I have appeared at as many tribunals


as he has sat on and I could tell him of case after case in which medically unfair decisions were made by the appeal tribunals on the advice of the medical men. It is much better that a medical man should not have a vote or a voice which would tend to be decisive, from his experience and knowledge, in a case in which medical evidence may be the preponderating issue. The medical man should be there as adviser, saying, "I have no issue in this, I am not concerned with your view and I take no part in the case. Quite judicially and impartially from the medical point of view I submit to you certain advice." I would also like to see the advice of medical assessors put down in writing. It is a great habit of medical men to expound views and theories by word of mouth which they would not dare to put down in writing. I have to put mine down in writing. [Laughter.] Yes, that is so. Unfortunately my employers do not allow me to give my views by word of mouth, considering the expense of my decisions when they come to an appeal court.
Medical men are not trained to give decisions. It is part of their training to give advice. As has been said to-day, many of them have prejudiced views. I am not trying to say anything hurtful about my profession; it is a very noble profession, and the best in the world, but medical men tend to have fixed views. Sometimes they have fixed views not only out of their own experience, but on the opinions of certain consultants. Time and again, I have had arguments with my medical friends and have asked: "How could you possibly come to such a view? What is your experience? How many cases of this kind have you seen?" All they could do in their reply was to mention the name of a certain consultant and to say that that was what so and so said and "I am prepared to trust his opinion." I do not believe that medical men should have that sort of opinion. I believe in men coming to their own considered opinion, having carefully sifted a case for themselves, on their own experience, ideas and judgment, rather than trust to the opinions of some celebrated consultant who may be as ignorant as they are on the particular point at issue. Because of that, I support the Amendment that medical men should not be

part and parcel of tribunals, should not be members, but should be there, giving a strictly judicial opinion and, if you like, adjudicating on the medical issue, saying quite fairly, "That is my considered view and I leave it to you to come to a decision one way or the other."

Mr. Bellenger: It seems to me that whichever way we have it, whether we let the doctors have a vote in the tribunal or only a voice, they will quite often give decisions which, in the opinion of my hon. Friend, will be biased and prejudiced. Even if we let them act as assessors we have to assume that they will guide the tribunals to the best of their ability. The doctor may be right or wrong, but there will be two other members of the tribunal to assess whether the medical officer, or medical assessor, or medical member of the tribunal, or whatever you care to call him, is right or wrong. I have come to this conclusion: I used to think that it would not be advisable to have two medical members on tribunals which deal with the degree of assessment of the final award, but, having listened to the doctors in the Committee and the differing views expressed by them, I think that if we leave it as it is, there will be an opportunity for the legal chairman of the tribunal to come to a correct decision.

Mr. Magnay: The governing factor in this matter of pensions appeal tribunals is that when you have only two members, the doctor, whether he is assessor, medical referee or whatever you like to call him, is there for the purpose of guiding the two members of the tribunal. These men must be absolute "duds" if they have not minds of their own and are not capable of deciding whether the advice is right or wrong. There may be a use of technical terms or the doctor, as sometimes they have to do, will deliver the decisions in Latin terms. Unless the chairman of the tribunal is a very good lawyer and remembers his Latin, the member of the medical profession may try to bemuse the tribunal by the use of Latin terms.

Captain Cobb: The suggestion is that there should be an assessor to do that for them.

Mr. Magnay: The appellant will want the tribunal to be competent to act, and to act promptly and let him know once


and for all where he stands. They sit there not only as judges but as jury deciding not only on the question of law but on the questions of fact which a jury decides. I suggest that what has been proposed by the Minister of Pensions is adequate.

Sir W. Womersley: I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I have stated quite briefly that the practice of having a medical man as a voting member of the tribunal has been carried on for 25 years and has given entire satisfaction to all. I can say definitely that those I have had to consult, who represent the people who will be appealing before these tribunals, both ex-Servicemen and civilians—both representative bodies and very influential bodies—say they do not desire to have anything like the workmen's compensation practice. They much prefer the tribunal practice which we have had during the last 25 years. It will not please them if alteration is made.

Captain Cobb: What evidence has the Minister got of this delight at these medical tribunals?

Sir W. Womersley: My experience has been very extensive because I have appeared for ex-Servicemen and was connected with this work for many years before coming to the Ministry. This form of tribunal is entirely satisfactory to the appellant. I do not know of a single case where they have said that they did not want the doctor to have a vote on the tribunal. I have consulted the British Legion as regards the ex-Servicemen and the T.U.C. as regards the civilians and, in both cases, they say they prefer that the doctor should be a voting member of the tribunal. That is coming from a very influential source, people representing those who have to go before the tribunal.

Dr. Morgan: I speak with great diffidence and have no authority for saying this, but in what communication has the Minister asked the T.U.C. for an opinion on the medical tribunals?

Sir W. Womersley: I would remind the hon. Member that he was present at one conference I had with the T.U.C. on this matter, over the question of the Civilian Injuries Scheme. At one conference I was told, "For goodness sake keep away

from county court practice as far as you can."

Dr. Morgan: That is different. I have no authority to speak for the T.U.C., I am only a part-time medical adviser. I remember well the occasion of which the Minister speaks. He asked me, rather injudiciously, for a personal memorandum which I could not have given him as I was there for the T.U.C. What I asked just now was what evidence can the Minister produce that he has asked, specifically, such an important organisation as the T.U.C. for an opinion on the medical tribunals? They may have given one, but I do not know of it.

Sir W. Womersley: I never made any such statement. I said I gathered opinions and that is the opinion I got from the British Legion and the T.U.C. in our conversations on the question of the scheme itself. I am perfectly entitled to make that clear to the Committee. Now we have got it clear. It has been the practice for 25 years and as far as I know has been giving perfect satisfaction to everyone. Secondly, it is the wish of those who represent the people who will have to appeal, that we shall keep as far away as possible from workmen's compensation practice. This is the only way we shall do that. If it is to be done by bringing in a medical assessor we shall be on the lines of workmen's compensation practice at once.
If the proposal applies to a doctor, why have a lawyer on the tribunal? Why not a legal assessor? I think it is necessary to have a legal member because of his legal knowledge and to have a medical member because of his medical knowledge. My hon. Friend will agree that there must be a doctor on this job because almost everything in it hinges on medical opinion. Then we have to represent the persons concerned by someone who has served in similar circumstances, who knows the position and can give advice and help. Would you deprive him of a vote and have him come in as an assessor to tell us what happened out in North Africa or wherever it was? I submit that the method we propose is a sound and proper method to adopt. It has given satisfaction to everybody, and because there is a little difference of opinion between lawyers and doctors we must not fail to judge this fairly and impartially.


What is the fairest form of tribunal? I say three members representing the three different sections I have mentioned—the law, medical practice, and those who come from the same category as the appellants. That is the fairest way to do it—give them a vote, give them a responsibility.

Mr. Mathers: Surely it is important that the Committee should be informed whether or not the denial of a vote on the tribunal to the doctor would, in any way, hamper or hinder doctors from taking part. Would they be prejudiced, as regards taking part in any tribunal, if they were relegated to a position which they did not think was in keeping with their status in relation to such a body?

Sir W. Womersley: Quite definitely yes.

Amendment negatived.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I beg to move, in page 8, line 15, at the end, to insert "of not less than seven years standing."
I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long with this Amendment. The Committee has just decided the principle that there shall be a medical representative on the tribunal. I want to see that the medical opinion shall be medical opinion of the right kind. If the Amendment is to be accepted, I will not waste the time of the Committee.

Sir W. Womersley: I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 19, after "practitioners," insert "of not less than seven years standing."—(Sir H. Morris-Jones.)

Major Nield: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out subparagraph (a), and to insert:
(a) if the claim was made in respect of a member of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces under any such Royal Warrant, Order in Council, or Order of His Majesty as is referred to in Section one of this Act, shall be a retired, discharged or demobilised member of any of the said forces who has been on active service during the war.
The object of this Amendment, in conjunction with the next Amendment, is twofold. It is, first, to avoid multiplicity of tribunals and, secondly, to ensure that the Service member shall have had ex-

perience of modern Service conditions. The Committee will agree that a tribunal of this kind becomes efficient through the continuity of its experience, and that by such continuity of experience it achieves uniformity. We suggest that it is unnecessary to have for the hearing of an ex-officer's case an ex-officer as well as for the hearing of the case of an ex-other rank another ex-other rank. We suggest that the Lord Chancellor's discretion to appoint a Service member should not be fettered in that way. The second part of the proposal is that the Service member sitting on the tribunal should have an experienced knowledge of modern Service conditions. Reference has been made to the difficulty of finding suitable members among those who have served in the present war. If that is the feeling of the Committee, I do not press that part of the Amendment; but I suggest that it is unnecessary to have two different tribunals to deal with an ex-officer's case and an ex-other rank's case.

Sir W. Womersley: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. It will break into one of the root principles, which we have tried to establish in connection with the tribunals, that in the case of an ex-other rank there shall be a member from the other ranks as the third member on the tribunal, and that in the case of an ex-officer an ex-officer shall be appointed. It goes right round, and in the case of a woman, the third member of the tribunal will be a woman. We hope that these people will be the friends of the appellants. We want them to have some knowledge of the conditions under which these people have served, or have worked in the case of civilians; and we hope that they will be very helpful to the tribunal. We do not want to have any difficulty about this matter. I have consulted again those who are responsible for representing the people who will have to come before the tribunals, and they are very definite indeed in the view that we cannot have a mixed tribunal. I think that even the ex-officers would object to being tried by an ex-sergeant major, because in military courts they would not be tried by a sergeant-major but by another officer. It is going to cause a great deal of trouble, and the Lord Chancellor is not very happy about having to find these different categories; but it is the only fair way of dealing with the question.

Major Nield: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I am quite prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I could shorten the Business of the Committee by not moving my Amendment, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert:
or a person who is or has been a master or member of the crew of a British ship, or a person who is or has been a member of a Civil Defence Organisation.
I can see that there are administrative difficulties, and, unless the Committee wishes otherwise, I will not move this Amendment.

Major Nield: I beg to move, in page 9, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(d) the provision of free legal aid in the preparation and conduct of the appeal.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Is there to be an opportunity of discussing the points dealt with in an Amendment in my name providing for the discovery of documents?

Sir W. Womersley: That is dealt with in a later Amendment.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of Order. It seems to me that the time of the Committee might be saved if we could discuss with this Amendment the other Amendment relating to expenses, which is on the Paper in the name of the Minister.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): If that is the general wish of the Committee, I have no objection.

Major Nield: Under the Schedule, the Lord Chancellor is empowered to make Rules with regard to proceedings of these appeal tribunals. I suggest that he should be empowered also to grant legal aid to the appellant to enable him properly to present his case. It is a matter with which I thought my right hon. Friend might have been in sympathy.

The Attorney-General: The Amendment on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, which we are also discussing, does not go quite so far as that which my hon. and gallant Friend has moved. We are against the provision of free legal aid. It is very important, everybody agrees, to preserve, on the whole, the informal character of these tribunals, so that the atmosphere should not be, either in form or in substance,

that of a court of law, with two contesting sides. The picture we have in our minds, quite rightly, in regard to free legal aid is that of a poor man who has a case but is faced by a better-off man employing a skilled counsel. In such a case, people who could not afford legal representation should be able to have the services of solicitors and barristers free; otherwise, the scales are weighted. Our law courts system is based upon opposing advocates. But if you provided free legal aid for the applicant appearing before these tribunals, it might be said that the Ministry must be legally represented. Nobody would tolerate having one side represented and not the other. The Ministry will not only not be represented by legal people before the tribunals, but, as they always have done, they will give instructions to their representatives not to conduct the proceedings as advocates, but to put all the facts before the tribunals, in order to help the tribunals. Therefore, while appreciating what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, we do not believe that it would be right or helpful to provide free legal aid.
We propose to take power to give travelling expenses and allowances for the appellant attending the hearing of his appeal or, where he is not able to attend, for the relative or friend attending for him—expenses reasonably incurred in obtaining, for the purposes of the appeal, a medical report or certificate or the attendance of medical witnesses. It is very important that not only should they have personal expenses but that the tribunal shall have power to give all reasonable costs of a certificate and if necessary, of the attendance of a witness. I hope that the Committee will feel that it is satisfactory and that it would be a mistake to contemplate legal aid in all cases. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment and that the Committee will accept the Minister's.

Mr. Bellenger: I want to thank the Government for this generous concession. Hon. Friends of mine and myself as soon as we had examined the Draft Bill, put down an Amendment to cover the expenses of the appellant. The Government have met us very generously. As corning from one who has been a constant critic of the Government on many matters connected with war pensions, the Committee can take it that my hon. Friends and


myself are completely satisfied with the way in which the Government have met us.

Dr. Haden Guest: I want to add my word of appreciation to what has been said, but can the Minister tell us whether there have been any number of cases of appeals before appeal tribunals in which legal representatives have appeared? My own experience has been that the informal and friendly atmosphere of appeal tribunals did not require the assistance of advocates on either side. They were tribunals to try and form a real objective opinion of the case in the interests of all concerned and that was done without legal assistance. I am glad that the Government are not willing to give free legal aid. That would merely encourage legal representation which is not required. The provision for expert evidence in the terms laid down on the Paper and for travelling expenses and allowances is an admirable one and I am sure it will facilitate the work of the tribunal considerably.

Sir W. Womersley: The experience was that, after the early days of the tribunals, comparatively few of the appeals came forward with either barrister or solicitor. The reason was that by that time organisations representing ex-Service men, which later were amalgamated with the British Legion, came in and were prepared to provide the assistance necessary for such cases. I want to make this announcement and I am sure that on hearing it my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment. The British Legion on this occasion have men training specially for this work to act as the advocates or friend of appellants. They have given it out publicly that this help and assistance will be given to anyone who has an appeal whether a member of the Legion or not, and it will be possible to get better representation than would be obtained by having someone who might not have studied the problem.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the last words of the right hon. Gentleman, I did not understand that we were discussing at the moment the Amendment in my name dealing with tribunal representation. If we had been, there was something I desired to say. As I understand it, that Amendment is not before the Committee.

The Attorney-General: No.

Mr. Silkin: I have two Amendments on the Paper, one dealing with expenses and the other for providing that any Rules made by the Lord Chancellor should be laid on the Table of this House. Both have been made in the Committee to-day, and I wish to add my word of appreciation. Not only have the Government met my Amendments to the letter, but they have even gone beyond the terms of them, which I very much appreciate. On the terms of representation, speaking as a lawyer, I agree with the Minister of Pensions that probably, in cases before these tribunals, the men will be better served by having representatives from the British Legion or of some similar body rather than having legal persons. If every appellant had the right to have legal aid, no doubt a very large number of them would accept that and would be legally represented. It might be undesirable for them to lay themselves open to legal representation knowing that they would get their costs. I say it reluctantly but I am sure there would be a class of legal person who would lay himself out for this particular class of work and this would be undesirable. I see nothing in the Bill which gives the right of representation to the British Legion or other bodies. I do not know whether it would be assumed that they would automatically have that right. If they are to have that right, I ask that similar bodies such as trade unions should have that right.

Dr. Morgan: My point is a small one, and as one who is generally in opposition on these matters, I would like to congratulate the Government on these Amendments. There is one part of the Amendment (3) (a ii) which reads:
In the case where an appellant is unable to attend the hearing for reasons of health.
Would incapacity be attributed to health? Sometimes medically, a man is well and yet he is incapacitated, say, from complete stiffness of body and limb from rheumatism. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that as incapacity?

The Attorney-General: I can assure the hon. Member that these words "reasons of health" would include the right to cover the case of incapacity.

Mr. Morgan: I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Major Nield: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
Provided that such rules shall include provision for the representation of the appellant at his desire by solicitors or counsel or by the accredited representative of the British Legion or of any Trade Union, or any other fit and proper person whom he shall designate at the discretion of the tribunal.
My object and that of my hon. Friends is to elicit a statement from the Government, and provided we are given an assurance that the Rules will contain the matter in the Amendment we shall not desire to insert the Amendment. We want to make it plain that the Committee recognise that all appellants before the tribunal may not be able to speak for themselves. It is all very well to talk, as some people are often doing, about the need for an informal atmosphere. I am fully in sympathy with that sort of thing, but there comes a point when an informal atmosphere sometimes causes an injustice. A man may not know how to put his case, and he does want someone to put his case for him. He is not always the stupidest man either. It is only a limited class of people who can argue for themselves. It should be definitely accepted that a man should have the right to be represented at the hearing of his appeal in order to be certain that his case is fairly presented by someone. The people who, we think, ought to have the right of audience before appeal tribunals are solicitors or counsel. The right to free legal aid is one thing, but the right to legal aid if you want it is another. It might be that a person had some particular solicitor or counsel he wanted to represent him, and we think that it is right that that should be allowed. The British Legion and the trade union and any other fit and proper person should have the right of audience before a tribunal. We all know of cases of people who like to be represented by some old friend who does not necessarily represent the organisation of which he is a member. In those circumstances, I invite the Government to make known their views.

The Attorney-General: As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) realises, there is sufficient power under paragraph 5 (1, c) to enable Rules to be

made for representation or assistance by the various categories of persons set out in his Amendment. I can give him and the Committee an assurance that Rules will be made to provide for all the categories of persons which he has set out and which, in fact, amount to no restriction of any kind.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(2) Such rules shall provide for the disclosure of all such documents (whether in the possession of a government department or not) as are necessary for disposing fairly of the appeal, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the rules may prescribe in the public interest, and shall provide for making available to the appellant copies of all documents produced to the Tribunal in connection with the appeal except where the Tribunal considers it undesirable in the interests of the appellant.
This Amendment deals with the very important question of the disclosure of documents. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who said in the Second Reading Debate that one way in which those who sat on this Bench. could acquire prestige and popularity was by accepting the suggestions made to them from the back benches, will, I hope, be pleased, and I trust the necessary consequences will follow, when I point out that we have accepted the two main points which he put and in which he was interested. In the Amendment which he put on the Paper he wished us to provide that the question of the disclosure of documents should be for the Lord Chancellor. We have accepted that by providing that the Rules which the Lord Chancellor makes can deal with this matter. As the Committee knows, there are Rules, which are perfectly proper, that certain classes of documents in Government Departments are privileged and cannot be compelled to be produced. My hon. Friend did not wish the public interest to be disregarded in any proper case, but he did wish that the decision as to what classes of documents should be normally subject to security considerations and so on should be disclosed should be decided by the Lord Chancellor and not by the particular Department.
The other principle to which I am sure my hon. Friend attaches importance is, with one positive exception, that what goes before the tribunal should go before the man. That we have provided for. The only exception is this: You may get a case—and I think medical Members will support me here—where there is a medical report of an incurable disease which it may be contrary to the man's own interest to disclose to him. We have left the question of non-disclosure to the tribunal, not to the Minister. We intend, indeed, we hope, that the tribunal in such cases would allow a document to be seen by the man's medical officer. We did not put that in here because it is theoretically possible that a man may not have a medical officer. In 999 cases out of 1,000 he would. With regard to exceptional conditions, you might get in part of a document something which was highly secret. For instance, there may be an incident which took place in convoy. I do not find it very easy to imagine that anything of a security nature would be relevant to the actual decision, but there is power in the Schedule to see that all proper secrecy is preserved in these matters. If documents cannot be produced on security grounds, then the tribunals will not see them. Then, of course, there is no intention that confidential minutes of opinion should be disclosed. It might be unfair to the man that they should be. Reports of previous courts of inquiry would be documents which would go before the tribunal and before the man.
The Rules will come before this House under a later Amendment; I do not want to explain in detail what they may contain, indeed, I do not know. The important point is that everything that goes before the tribunal goes to the man and that the Lord Chancellor will consider the public interest, which will be reflected in the Rules. There might be documents which ought to be before the tribunal but which it might be undesirable to discuss and read in open court. My noble Friend has in mind a possible provision by which you could have a limited in camera hearing which would enable documents which should not be disclosed in open court, to be disclosed. My noble Friend is anxious that all material which is relevant should be put before the tribunal and the man.

Earl Winterton: I presume that when the Attorney-General refers to matters which could not be properly disclosed the Government will make a differentiation between the practice which must necessarily prevail in war-time and that which should prevail after the war?

The Attorney-General: Yes, if a document was so secret that it could not be disclosed, I imagine that the practice would be unlikely to go on after the cessation of hostilities.

Dr. Haden Guest: I agree that there are certain documents about a man's condition which it would be undesirable in his own interest that he should learn of. I understand that we are going to have a Rule that such documents can be shown if there is some representative, medical or otherwise, of the man.

The Attorney-General: The Rule will make it clear that the tribunal will have power to show it to the man's medical adviser, and I hope they will do it.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to welcome what the Attorney-General has said and to assure him that the consequences that he asks for will duly follow. This has been a happy example of the use of Parliamentary procedure. Not only have suggestions from the back benches been accepted, but, even when they have not, they have stimulated the Government to give good reasons for their decisions which would not otherwise have been elicited.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 9, line 21, leave out, "Any."

In line 24, at the end, insert new Subsections:
(3) Such rules shall provide for the payment by the Tribunal of:

(a) travelling expenses and allowances to the following persons—

(i) an appellant attending the bearing of his appeal by the Tribunal;
(ii) in a case where an appellant is unable to attend the hearing for reasons of health, a relative or friend attending the hearing on his behalf;
(iii) in a case where the appellant attends the hearing but requires for reasons of health to be accompanied by an attendant, that attendant;
(b) expenses reasonably incurred by appellants in obtaining, for the purpose of their appeals, medical reports and certificates and the attendance of medical witnesses; and


(c) in a case where leave is obtained (whether by the appellant or the Minister) to appeal to a judge of the High Court, the costs incurred by the appellant in connection with that appeal.
(4) All such rules shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such rules are laid before it, resolves that the rules be annulled, they shall thenceforth become void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there under or to the making of new rules.
In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

In line 25, leave out paragraph 6.—[Sir W. Womersley.]

Sir W. Womersley: I beg to move, in page 9, line 43, at the end, to insert:
8. In the case of appeals heard in Wales the appellant or any witness may, if he considers that he would otherwise be at a disadvantage by reason of his natural language of communication being Welsh, use the Welsh language and rules made under this Schedule may provide for the employment of interpreters of the English and Welsh languages for the purpose of any such appeal.
This is to meet the point as to the provision of Welsh interpreters

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the proposal put forward from representatives of all parties from Wales. It will meet cases of hardship of young men from rural areas who are acquainted with both English and Welsh, but are more accustomed to express themselves in their own language.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. David Adams: Before agreeing to the Schedule, I should like to suggest that insufficient consideration has been given to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) to insert, after "practitioners":
of not less than seven years' standing.

An hon. Member: It was accepted

Mr. Adams: I am aware that the Minister accepted it

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot raise it as an Amendment. If he likes, he can tell the Government how nice it was to accept the principle.

Mr. David Adams: Cannot I protest against the decision

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Amendment now

Mr. Adams: Am I not allowed to say that it is a bad thing

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am afraid that is impossible. It has been accepted, and it is part of the Bill

Mr. Adams: I thought it would be competent for anyone who disagreed to say so.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, the hon. Member cannot deal with the Amendment as an Amendment or object to the Amendment. He can, on the Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill," say that the Schedule is improved or otherwise by the insertion of certain Amendments, but he must not discuss the Amendment in detail.

Mr. Adams: I want to say that I feel that the Amendment leaves the Schedule in a weaker condition than it ought to be; indeed, that the Amendment has been made unnecessarily. I should like to know why so long a period has been stipulated in the case of medical practitioners when the condition does not apply to any other member of the tribunal. The Minister by accepting this is probably excluding many brilliant younger men. It is well known that medical practitioners of seven years or more standing are not necessarily the best persons to be selected.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to have to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he really must not discuss the Amendment.

Mr. Adams: I have made my protest.

Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

CLAUSE 6.—(Constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "have regard to," and to insert "be bound by."
That is in accordance with the undertaking I gave to the Committee.

Earl Winterton: I want to thank the Attorney-General for meeting this point and to say that as he has met it I do not propose to object to taking the Report stage now.

Amendment agreed to

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Dobbie: I would like, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has met all the matters that have been brought to his notice by hon. Members. We hope that during the next year he will keep his mind open with regard to any anomalies that may arise in the application of the Royal Warrant and which may be brought to his notice by Members

Sir I. Fraser: I want to offer congratulations to the Minister on having got as far as he has in the difficult road he has been riding along. I would like to congratulate also the Attorney-General who has been of the greatest help to the Committee. I would like, too, to say a word of appreciation of ourselves in the House and the Committee. I cannot help thinking that this Bill has been very greatly improved by the consideration which has been given to it outside the Committee and here on the Floor. It makes me wonder, when I think of the days we have spent bringing these matters to the notice of the Government and securing this and other Measures which are either fully completed or in process of being completed, what similar situation could arise were the ex-Service men in the enemy's country. Could they or their friends in Parliament have been able to have their views expressed? Could the Government have been embarrassed, as this Government has been, quite properly, in the past months, and could they have had the attention and care which this House has given them? I think not, and it is to our credit that we can render the service which the House has rendered to ex-Service men

Dr. Morgan: There is one flaw in this magnificent Bill, and I was caught napping when I let it pass. It is the provi-

sion that medical practitioners who are members of tribunals should be of seven years' standing. It is an inequity to ask men to risk their lives on the battlefield, who know the conditions of service, and then to deprive them from being members of tribunals because they have not been qualified for seven years. There are young men who have been qualified for less than seven years who have been brought up in modern medicine and have had experience of service conditions, who ought to have the opportunitiy of serving on tribunals

Mr. David Adams: I want to supplement that by saying that I feel very strongly on this point. The Minister accepted the Amendment so rapidly that there was practically no opportunity for discussion. I know, as a member of a local authority of many years' standing, that there are many brilliant young men who have gone into the Forces, and they will be excluded under this provision from serving on tribunals. I hope that the Minister in another place will see that an Amendment is made to provide for a shorter qualifying period

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): Now that we have reached the last stage of the deliberations on this Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) have paid such generous tributes to the Minister of Pensions and his staff, and to the Attorney-General, tributes which I may say are really deserved, because they have worked not only very laboriously but against the clock, I would also like to pay a tribute to the House itself. The fact that the House has worked so hard and expeditiously to-day will enable us to get this Bill to another place and get it back before the Recess, and enable us to get the tribunals into operation at the earliest possible moment, which is what we all desire: and so the purpose for which I rise is to express my thanks to the House.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1941

Resolutions reported:


"I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1942, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–6 and 8–16)
—


16,542,858
6
5


Deduct—Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer in respect of the Excess of Receipts over the total of Appropriations-in-Aid authorised by Parliament
—


677,771
16
6






15,865,086
9
11


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 1 and 7)
15,865,086
9
11





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
511,529,637
18
8









527,394,724
8
7


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£511,529,637
18
8

And whereas the Lord Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of that part of the surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 6 and 8 to 6 which is required to make good the deficit in receipts under Votes 1 and 7."


1. "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1943; cols. 419–420, Vol. 391.]


"II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1942, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Army Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–15)



20,681,496
3
3


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
43,343,409
19
3





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
594,733,493
9
6









638,076,903
8
9


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£617,395,407
5
6

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 15 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1."


2. "That the application of such Surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1943; cols. 423–424, Vol. 391.]


"III. Whereas it appears by the Air Services Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1942, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–11)



34,522,819
14
8


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiences of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
46,693,301
19
0





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
348,696,473
0
1









395,389,774
19
1


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£360,866,955
4
5


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of 'His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to II towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1."


3. "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1943, cols. 425 and 426, Vol. 391.]


Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — COAL (MINERAL RIGHTS DUTY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Coal Act, 1938, it is expedient to authorise the treatment, for the purpose of mineral rights duty—

(i) of the lessee for the time being under any lease granted under Section thirteen of the said Act of 1938 as amended by the first-mentioned Act; and
(ii) of any person, who, during any period between the date of the commencement of the term granted by any such lease as aforesaid and the date of the granting of the lease, has worked or works coal comprised in the lease under a licence granted by the Coal Commission;
as the proprietor and not as a lessee of the premises demised by the lease."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

Mr. Tinker: Where is this Motion to be found on the Order Paper

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): On page 2453

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): The reason for this Ways and Means Resolution is that the Coal Bill which is before the House imposes taxes upon parties who hitherto did not pay them. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) will remember that when royalties were privately owned the royalty owners had to pay Mineral Rights Duty and the Royalties Welfare Levy. Those who remember the Coal Act, 1938, will know that the effect of one of the Sections is to try to leave the freeholder, with this transference over, neither better off nor worse off that he was before. Now that the royalties have been transferred from private hands into the hands of the

Coal Commission, those who work the coal, that is, the new owner who gets the new lease, will have to pay the royalty levy and the Mineral Rights Duty. This Ways and Means Resolution is necessary, because that is imposing taxes upon those who hitherto did not pay them. That is the explanation of why the Resolution is necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved,
That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Wandsworth and District Gas Company, which was presented on 24th June and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Gloucester Gas Light Company, which was presented on 24th June and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Driffield, a copy of which was presented to this House on 20th July, be approved."—[Mr. Boulton.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.